Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image of Pedro Linares from Historian's History of the World

Hello, I would like to know what the copyright status is of the photo of Pedro Linares here File:Pedro_Linares.jpg. I have been in touch with Judith Bronowski, who is the author of the photograph, who did not upload this to Commons. Is the book this comes from in a GNU license? If so, do we have documentation of this? Thelmadatter (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thelmadatter: It is implausible that a 1970 color photo was in a 1904 book en:The Historians' History of the World. @Gallina x: Where did you get this photo and permission to publish it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Queensland public domain photographs

I have uploaded some photographs from Queensland State Archives using the Flickr-to-Commons tool only to find out that the public domain tag they come with is not enough. I am not sure what is the appropriate tag to add. Does anyone know? Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

They would have to conform to {{PD-Australia}}. But to also conform to {{PD-1996}}, for the U.S. part of policy, they should be photographs taken before 1946. Or, it could conform to {{PD-AustraliaGov}}, which would be government works published more than 50 years ago (currently 1968). Works marked "public domain" on Flickr is not necessarily enough -- the Flickr user could have a poor understanding of copyright, etc. Generally, there is an external reason why files become public domain, and we have tags for those specific reasons. Our policy is that works must be public domain in both the country of origin and the United States -- so we need the tags for those countries in particular. It's possible the Flickr user is correct for their own country, but not the country of origin and/or the United States. For those reasons, we do not blindly accept the Public Domain Mark here, but rather need further research to find the actual reason something is public domain. Flickr users marking *their own* works with the public domain tag is a bit troublesome, because that tag is actually meant for works authored by other people. A statement using Creative Commons Zero is the preferred Flickr way to put your own works into the public domain (or as close as possible). The Public Domain Mark might have a legal effect, but it has been contentious here. If you are talking about files like File:The Duke and Duchess of York at airport, 1988.jpg, that is more interesting -- Crown Copyright cannot have expired, so it's probably not public domain unless that statement on their official Flickr page means that was the intention. If you go to the image source noted on the Flickr page at www.archivessearch.qld.gov.au, there is a CC-BY-3.0-au link at the bottom right, and the site license says everything on the site not otherwise noted is CC-BY-4.0. I think it would make more sense to use that original source, and put a license of either {{Cc-by-3.0-au}} or {{Cc-by-4.0}} on it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

FoP-China attribution for photos uploaded by User:雲角

FoP-China requires attribution but I can't provide it: Special:ListFiles/雲角. - Alexis Jazz 01:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand how it is connected to FoP? Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: @雲角 appears not to be revealing the author and name of the artwork the user is photographing and uploading on the file description pages, and {{FoP-China}} requires that author and name. Thus, the uploads of that user which clearly are derivative works of artistic, architectural, or applied artwork in public places in the People's Republic of China should not be here. @Alexis Jazz: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Jeff G.: exactly what I meant to say. User:雲角 (and others can possibly help) need to add the attribution (and FoP-China template) to his photos. Besides being required for FoP-China it would also make the pictures much more useful. I was organizing some categories and stumbled upon this. I don't really know anything about Chinese artworks though so I dropped this note here. - Alexis Jazz 21:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
User:雲角's photos appear to be taken in Taiwan so {{FoP-Taiwan}}, which does not have attribution requirements, is relevant rather than FoP-China. --Wcam (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
well, I don't really know how to modify it, so I don't mind the deletion of these two photos.--雲角 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@雲角: Change "China" to "Taiwan". These photos were taken in Taiwan, ROC, right?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Change? Yes, those pictures I took in Penghu where is belonged in Taiwan(R.O.C). But I never mentioned my picture is taken in China, even in Chinese.--雲角 (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@雲角: This is about a lot more than two photos. Maybe a hundred? - Alexis Jazz 16:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Wcam: {{FoP-Taiwan}} doesn't allow "reproduction of artistic works" so that's possibly worse. That means deletion. - Alexis Jazz 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that photos of 2D artworks should not be allowed. --Wcam (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Why did you choose "China"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
No political reason if that's what you're asking. The files I stumbled upon where File:烏崁靖海宮｜戊戌元宵＿金龜.jpg, File:烏崁靖海宮｜威靈顯赫匾.jpg and File:烏崁靖海宮｜澤被蒼生匾.jpg. I also added FoP-China to those. I assumed Category:Wujing Jinghai Palace referred to Category:Jinghai, Tianjin. Please do correct me if I'm wrong because if I am I also categorized it incorrectly. I couldn't find this "Wujing Jinghai Palace" elsewhere. - Alexis Jazz 16:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
This "Wujing Jinghai Palace" is located in Penghu, Taiwan. --Wcam (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. But many photos depict artistic works and {{FoP-Taiwan}} says:
"Reproductions of artistic works are thus only for non-commercial purposes; therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons."
So they can't be here? Or are sculptures and things like File:澎湖天后宮｜虎邊壁堵.jpg not considered "artistic works"? - Alexis Jazz 18:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Photos of 3D artworks should be ok. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:楊梅伯公山公園入口.jpg. --Wcam (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I just edited the catgory of File:烏崁靖海宮｜戊戌元宵＿金龜.jpg, File:烏崁靖海宮｜威靈顯赫匾.jpg and File:烏崁靖海宮｜澤被蒼生匾.jpg, moved them from Category:Wujing Jinghai Palace to Category:Wukan Jinghai Temple. Chinese charater 烏崁 shall be "Wu-kan" in pinyin, instead of "Wu-Jing", google transfer is wired sometimes.--雲角 (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@雲角: And I redirected the old category. Although {{FoP-Taiwan}} does not require it, if you know the title/author of an artwork it would be nice if you can add it to the description of images and categorize accordingly. - Alexis Jazz 14:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for your reminding, I just learned to write articles and upload images to Wiki recently. I will notice the description and category more carefully.--雲角 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Thumb 1471624873-Doug Band new.jpg

I think we have a confused new user here, I see no evidence it's copyright free. The source is here Doug Weller (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I tagged it as such.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I had already tagged it "No permission". I picked that over copyvio in case I had missed the CC0 license or it was hidden away somewhere on the source. No permission is already a form of speedy and I didn't see the need for the hurry of copyvio in this case. Although it's probably just copyvio. - Alexis Jazz 16:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I looked harder and relied on the following exclusionary blanket statements from Teneo Terms of Service: "All content ... is protected by copyright" and "[o]ur prior permission is required for (i) any commercial use".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Bimal-Roy.jpg

This file is claimed to be "own work" which seems unlikely (no EXIF data, etc.); moreover, there's no other information provided which makes it possible to verify whether it might otherwise be free, just released under the wrong license. There's a watermark for filmkailm.com added to the lower right of the photo, and the photo can be seen here; however, I'm not sure this file originates from that website since it looks like the website is just simply adding the url to all of the photos on it regardless of whether it really holds the copyright on them. Anyway, I've tagged the file as lacking permission, but I'm wondering if there's a way to figure out if it might be {{PD-India}} or within the public domain for some other reason? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I don't think the original is online, the largest I found is in https://d1u4oo4rb13yy8.cloudfront.net/article/77676-ktzkfpjmty-1514475189.jpg, but it cuts off more of the top of his hair.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: https://im.idiva.com/photogallery/2012/Mar/bimalroy.jpg is better.
@Marchjuly: Bimal Roy died on 8 January 1966. Photographs from India published prior to 1 January 1958 are considered public domain. If you are willing to assume the photo was first published in India, that would make a combination {{PD-India}} and {{PD-US-no notice}} plausible. If the photo was made for the Indian market you're not going to bother to register US copyright for it. You would only have to figure out the date. He looks a lot older on http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/entertainment/6-things-you-need-to-know-about-Bimal-Roy/article13992062.ece, perhaps you can find out more through "The Hindu Archives" where that photo comes from. But that photo already makes it pretty plausible File:Bimal-Roy.jpg was taken more than 8 years before his death. Find out if he left India a lot (making it plausible the picture wasn't taken in India) and assuming he didn't, find some more photos/videos with dates. Ideally a photo that was made before 1958 on which he looks older than he does on File:Bimal-Roy.jpg. You may be able to change the license to PD-India with PD-US-no notice and change the date to {{before|1958}}. - Alexis Jazz 23:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff G. and Alexis Jazz. FWIW, I tend to be a little careful about assuming anything when it comes to images such as this. It seems unlikely to be "own work" and the filmkailm website's watermark seemed a little suspicious. I was going to tag it with {{Npd}} myself, but was curious if it could be kept under some other license. Since Roy is dead, this might be a good candidate to upload locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content if it cannot be established to be PD for some reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: FYI. @Thexahin: Why did you upload this as own work?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Um? - Alexis Jazz 23:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Exactly, For Your Information Marchjuly messed up when pinging you at 23:21 above, so it was a replacement ping. I think "FYI" looks better than "Pinging".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
He looks way, way older on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7aV4TrwRqw. He says right at the beginning "I'm 54.". So that interview was done around 1964. No way imho he aged that much in 6 years. (also, in roughly 6 years, that whole interview may be PD-India if it was taped/released in India) - Alexis Jazz 23:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
{{PD-US-no notice}} is only for works published in the US. {{PD-1996}} would be needed for a US copyright tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
That would only apply to photos of Bimal taken before 1936. Copyright is confusing.. When a work wasn't published in the US and it wasn't PD in its home country in 1996, what is the next expiration date/template? PD-1923? And what if the photo was first published in India and later published in the US? Would no notice apply in that case? - Alexis Jazz 17:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
{{PD-India}} indicates the current Indian copyright term. For {{PD-1996}}, you would have to apply the Indian copyright term used in 1996, which means that photos from a few extra years also are fine.
If {{PD-1996}} doesn't apply, then {{PD-1923}} is the term you should use, unless the photo remained unpublished until 1978 in which case it gets more complex.
{{PD-1996}} is based on the country of first publication. If the photo was first published in India, then you check if {{PD-1996}} applies, even if it was later published in the United States. If the photo was first published in the United States (or published there within 30 days after the first publication in India), then you check if {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
If PD-1996 doesn't count, it will leave copyright in the US 95 years from its publication date. Currently that's everything published before 1923, but next year works from 1923 will be out of copyright. Works published in 1936 will be leaving copyright in 2032 in the US. As Stefan2 says, there's a narrow hard to prove window of 30 days for works reprinted in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Bedrich Smetana - ma vlast - i. vltava 'the moldau'.ogg

We are "Yad Ezer L'Haver" (a Helping Hand to a Friend), a non- profit organization, dedicated to save, support and protect homeless Holocaust survivors. Our compound offers visits (free) to our Holocaust Memorial Museum which holds many moving stories of Holocaust survivors , personal items from the Holocaust that were preserved over the years and brought to the museum for memorial purposes as well as exhibitions by survivor artists . We are trying to promote this Museum (entrance free) on the web and have created a small clip (for Youtube & facebook) as a virtual tour of our museum. We would like to insert mp3 music (the moldau) for this clip. Can we do this without trespassing on any royalty and or licence restrictions??? We would appreciate any help to find a 2 minute clip of the Moldau which can be published with no restrictions. The clip IS NOT FOR ANY PROFIT WHATSOEVER!!! BEST REGARDS & THANKS

Yad Ezer L'Haver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthb01 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ruthb01: according to the description page that clip is completely free to use, although the source requests credit (without legally requiring it). We are not concerned with whether or not you profit from its use: if you wished to include it in a souvenir video for sale, for example, you would be free to do so (although the contributor would apparently prefer you didn’t).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

FBI

This section was archived on a request by: Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 12:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In this site there are some drawings and photographs made by FBI agents. The drawings and some photographs are dated between 1977 and 1986. Other photographs seem more recent and are impossible to date. These images be uploaded to Commons? If the answer is yes, under what license? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 12:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Metrónomo: The work of FBI Agents is {{PD-USGov-FBI}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 12:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Metrónomo: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Books from the 1910's

I found these two books from the 1910's, one is either American or Japanese and the other is French, the list is here:

Can I import these? Which one (if any) of them is protected by copyright? I know that American works published before 1923 tend to be in the public domain but I am not sure if it's actually American, the other is French and was written by a Frenchman and an Annamite (French Indo-Chinese), I am not sure when either of them died. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi,
The link to the first book doesn't work for me. If it was first published in the US in 1914, it is in the public domain, whoever wrote it.
en:Raphaël Blanchard died in 1919, so his works are in the public domain in France. I can't any information about Bui Van Quy. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, when I get back from Paris I'll start uploading them. I will mark this section as resolved. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Notice in the catalog of the BNF: [1]. No date. Yann (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Why do you suggest that the first book is a US book? Publisher info is "JUN KOBAYAGAWA Co., Yokohama, Japan". Unless you can prove, that it is PD in Japan, it is not OK for Commons, IMO. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, Ramsden died in 1915. Ankry (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
i would upload to Internet Archive and then use IAuploader. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ankry (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

File:2016 Presidents Lifetime Achievement Award.png

I doubt this is "own work", but it might be {{PD-USGov}}. I am, however, unable to find it anywhere online, so was wondering if someone else might be able to track it down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Tagged as "no source" since I don't consider "United states of America" to be a valid source. The uploader will have to tell where he got this from so that the copyright status can be evaluated. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Files from the Portable Antiquities Scheme

Category:Portable Antiquities Scheme has more than 400,000 photos from finds.org. Content on their site is licensed CC-BY 3.0 as you can see from the footer. However, I've found a few cases where the images include a claim of 'all rights reserved' and some have been copied over to Commons (Google search with the problematic files). Does anyone have an idea what we should be doing with these files? Should we seek clarification or does a deletion discussion need to be set up? Richard Nevell (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Bumping to see if anyone has some advice. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Google Earth Screenshots

Hi,

I wish to use a screenshot from Google Earth as an historical image for what an area of... Earth was like before a specific redevelopment. Google simply ask or appropriate attribution, (https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html), yet my image was removed.

Is there a specific Copyright Tag I should use?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy.Osborn (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jeremy.Osborn: The attribution requirements are not the only requirements that Google places on re-use of its imagery. https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html lists others, and in particular only grants permission for very narrow commercial uses (for instance, use in print advertisements is forbidden). Commons' licensing requirements say that media on Commons must be licensed for use "for any purpose", so Google's restrictions on commercial use make their material unwelcome here. --bjh21 (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Logo, trademark and copyright

Someone has nominated the logo for American Idol (American Idol logo.svg) for deletion - Deletion requests/File:American Idol logo.svg, but I'm wondering if it is something that requires wider discussion as there are many logos for TV shows (or indeed other products) that may be in similar situation (therefore perhaps they need to be deleted as well if it is infringing on the trademark). Some trademarks may be permitted Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Trademarks but I don't really know how to judge the threshold of originality. For example, the American Idol logo went through a number of changes - e.g. [2][3][4][5]. Are they all permissible, or only some are permissible, or are they all not permissible? Hzh (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Helene Öberg.jpg

Can someone please determine the license of this image and pass or fail it please. It is from a Swedish government site and is reportedly free for reuse & free of charge. But I don't know Swedish and don't know the license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Only public data are free to reuse (on standardized and generous terms). The photo itself is copyrighted to Kristian Pohl/Regeringskansliet. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. De728631 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Rapsodia Satanica

File:Rapsodia Satanica (Nino Oxilia, 1917).webm, currently featured on the Main Page, is tagged as being "public domain" because the original movie is so old, but the "physical" film used to create the file clearly says "(C) 2007" at the end of the credits. So, is this file really able to be freely licensed as public domain? - 72.182.55.186 23:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

According to Directive 2006/116/EC (article 2):

The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.

w:Rapsodia satanica tells that the film was directed by w:Nino Oxilia, so I presume that this was the "principal director". This person has been dead for more than 70 years.
w:Rapsodia satanica does not reveal who the author of the screenplay and the author of the dialogue were, so I don't know whether they have been dead for at least 70 years. Text is shown at some places in the film, but I don't know whether that text is "dialogue" within the meaning of the directive.
w:Rapsodia satanica states that w:Pietro Mascagni composed at least some of the music. We seem to use a silent copy, but I doubt that matters when determining the copyright term. The composer has been dead for more than 70 years regardless.
The directive furthermore states (article 10):

Where a term of protection which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive was already running in a Member State on 1 July 1995, this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State.

In some EU countries, this means that many films get a longer copyright term than indicated in article 2. For example, in Sweden it's not enough to verify that the article 2 people have been dead for at least 70 years; you may also need to verify that some other people have been dead for at least 50 years. I don't know if this rule causes a longer copyright term for any Italian films.
Furthermore, there are French subtitles and a translation is normally copyrighted for 70 years from the death of the translator, but I don't know whether this translation meets the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
It's only the last line that stops me; why wouldn't the translation meet the threshold of originality? I'd say we've got 300+ words of story there, and that's enough for a translation to be original. I don't have solid cases on that, but I've only seen ToO applied in the US to really short texts (I seem to remember a medicine bottle that had 100 words that failed ToO, but that was incredibly rote.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: These stupid French burnsubs are completely unwanted and therefore de minimis. - Alexis Jazz 06:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't see the original YT video (region limited?) but this video is completely botched. The aspect ratio is wrong (that could be fixed), the bitrate is terrible (could maybe fix that with access to the YT vid) and some idiot forgot to apply a deinterlacing filter before scaling up the video. Before that there has been a framerate conversion as the movie was transferred to a video tape, DVD or TV. This makes me very, very sad. - Alexis Jazz 06:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
File talk:Rapsodia Satanica (Nino Oxilia, 1917).webm we should use the version from archive.org. (unless we find something better) That's probably where YouTube got it anyway. - Alexis Jazz 07:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Flag of Amherst, New York.svg

Recently when I was wandering around the files of Commons, I found File:Flag of Amherst, New York.svg, which is the town flag of the Town of Amherst, New York, USA. The file is tagged with a Template:PD-USGov template, which is of course not applicable here, and as the State of New York doesn't grant public domain to governmental works the file may be considered a license laundering. However, the file may be too simple that it does not meet the requirements of COM:TOO. The date of creation and publication is also unknown, leaving the file possibilities to be eligible for federal public domain (Template:PD-US). Can anyone give suggestions about this file?廣九直通車 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

How should I upload files that a UK company wishes to place into the public domain?

I am helping a UK plc science company review their very large (over 50,000-item) archive of photographs (prints and negatives) spanning 90 years, none of which is yet digitised. All of the media are held centrally and the photographers were either company employees or had been hired by the company to take (for example) aerial photos. A selection of the archive will be of interest to a wider scientific audience or historians. Once these files have been identified and digitalised — perhaps giving 100-1000 .jpg worth adding to Wikimedia commons, I will have the task of uploading them here. How should I proceed to do so? The plc will be happy to use the standard Wikimedia license terms but a) is this acceptable given that 3-rd parties took the photos and b) what level of confirmation need I give that the company has authorised my uploads (I am not an employee)? Clearly no-one in senior management or legal team will want to give one-at-a-time authorisation, I need a blanket way to authorise all the uploads just once, although I may in practice want to upload them in batches, or even singly given that each will need appropriate categorisation. Thanks. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Michael D. Turnbull,
Great news! Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions to send a release. For the technical part, you may ask people who have experience uploading things in volume. Fæ may know more. Please ask if you need help. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Yann,
Wonderful, that's exactly what I need. I was too much of a newbie here to work that out for myself :-( I'll give it a try in due course.Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Allosaurus-skull.jpg

Not sure if image is a cropped version of File:Allosaurus-crane.jpg (uploaded 25 minutes after editing File:Allosaurus-crane.jpg page) or if image is its own independent file. Would the same {{PermissionOTRS}} tag on File:Allosaurus-crane.jpg be placed on File:Allosaurus-skull.jpg in both scenarios? Relevant Archived DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Allosaurus-crane.jpg. File:Allosaurus-skull.jpg was related with an obsolete Wikipedia non-free tag: w:Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 7#Template:MorgueFile. The source for the images no longer exists. -- SLV100 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A crop does create any new copyright. So, it is a crop then the same copyright tag should be applied. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia fair use

They have a fair use rationale in the description, were transferred here and had already at the first revision a {{PD-US-not renewed}} template. So I don't know who added that template and if they checked that. What to do with it? How does this happen? - Alexis Jazz 09:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • The original Wikipedia uploader is claimed to be the author of both images, which is questionable.
For an image like this, I suppose that you should check the copyright renewal records if you dispute the copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This is seemingly a piece of larger problem known as SreeBot (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Stefan2: it's not really that I dispute the copyright tag, but it's not clear to me who added it. If it was added by an experienced editor I would trust it. - Alexis Jazz 17:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
have you talked to the bot operator, User talk:Sreejithk2000 ? -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sreejithk2000:
I have now. - Alexis Jazz 17:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like the bot moved the files here because it was in public domain. The bot did not add the license tag. If we can get an English Wikipedia editor see the history of the file in En Wiki, that will be helpful. --Sreejith K (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
File:Wild Cargo (1932) cover.jpg was originally at en:File:Wildcargobook.jpg. It was originally licensed as fair use and then converted from en:Template:Non-free book cover by the original uploader to en:Template:PD-Pre1964 on the 13th January 2011. File:Fang and Claw (1935) cover.jpg was originally en:File:Buck_fang_claw.jpg and like the other file was originally licensed as fair use, then converted from en:Template:Non-free book cover by the original uploader to en:Template:PD-Pre1964 on the 13th January 2011. According to the uploader's edits in the deleted file histories, both files come from a "personal collection". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
btw, welcome to the commons - fair use transfer mess. no documentation of licensing decisions. we could have a "fair use but really PD-US-no renewal" curation and transfer process, but instead we have english / commons thrashing - with files being transferred and deleted, and files being uploaded to commons, deleting the fair use one on english, and then the commons image being deleted. we need a english & commons process redesign to stop all the image rotting. a big waste of time.
Does anybody know why the history can't either be transferred and appended here appended or preserved on enwiki? (Policy, technology, or politics?)Dankarl (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
It is technically possible for a Commons administrator to import the history of the file information page from the original wiki, provided that the file information page hasn't already been deleted on the original wiki. However, this means extra work, and the file is often deleted soon after the file has been uploaded to Commons, before a Commons admin finds out about the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
you should not be nominating files based on who put on the PD license. in this case only english admins know. rather you should do the copyright search in the catalog of copyright entries 28 years after publication, and adding that reference to the metadata. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Wild Cargo was renewed in December 1959 (R248092); claimant was Muriel Buck (his wife; Frank Buck died 1950). Original registration A51859. If the cover art was done by someone else, that may not have been renewed. However the original registration was in the name of the two authors (Buck and Anthony), and includes "244 p. front. (port.) plates, facsims. 24cm. Illustrated t.-p. and lining-papers". So it's possible they own the copyright on the cover too, and the renewal may have covered that. I did not find any separate artwork renewals for it. Fang and Claw was renewed in March 1963 by a daughter, Barbara Buck Larick, renewal R313301. The original registration was A81397 in April 1935 by Simon & Schuster; per w:Fang and Claw (book) the cover was done by George Salter (and the cover is signed as such; see here). Again, if the cover was done by the publishing company, that may not have been renewed. I do not see any artwork renewals under either Salter or Simon & Schuster for 1963. I think I would  Keep on the Fang and Claw cover, and would lean delete on Wild Cargo but I'm not completely sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Where does a film originate?

If we take en:A Clockwork Orange (film), there are a number of commons images with a license of {{PD-US no notice}}. Now the film was made in England, Released in UK in December 1971, and released in US in 1972. Production company is a UK company (en:Hawk Films). So is it a US film (in that case {{PD-US no notice}} can be valid), or a UK film, in which case it's under copyright? Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

From enwiki infobox: the film was released on 19 December 1971 in US and on 13 January 1972 in UK. Note, that there is less than 30 days between the dates, so it should be considered a simultaneous release according to Berne Convention. Ankry (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, Infobox dates (all unref) don't agree with text at en:A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)#Responses_and_controversy - other way round! I might have go back through the history.Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
According to the IMDB, it was released in the US on 2 February 1972, but it was first shown simultaneously in New York and Canada on 19 December 1971, and released in the UK 13 January 1972.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
We have nothing from the film. We have images from the trailer, a legally distinct work. It's hard to tell when it was released where, and I'd like to see the trailer to know it lacks a copyright, since some trailers, especially by the 1970s, were starting to include them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I saw this one - File:PaulFarrellAClockworkOrange.png, which is why I raised the issue. Have not checked the trailer to see if it is in there. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
That's linked to the trailer here on Commons. Once I realized we had the trailer here, it took all of a minute to realize it did not have a copyright notice and it did include that shot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Osmosis Inc wants to specify place and manner of attribution for CC-BY-SA-4.0 videos

A representative of Osmosis has decided that they want to require that the bumpers of their videos be retained in all derivative works. This was not a requirement of the initial license grant when the files were uploaded and they are all CC-BY-SA-4.0. As I understand it the format/placement/method of attribution is up to the licensee not the grantor. The discussion was moved from en.wp to User_talk:OsmoseIt#Osmosis_Attribution_Requirements by User:OsmoseIt but it should probably take place here. Any input or insight from people familiar with attribution requirements of Creative Commons licenses would be appreciated. Jbh Talk 23:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: They may ask, but they may not require, as their licenses are irrevocable.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
They've also posted a new requirement on their website (a requirement made after they released the videos): "If you want to take a screen capture from one of these videos, you must include an unobstructed watermark saying 'Osmosis.org' in a corner of your choice within the image. This watermark must have 100% opacity, and be no smaller than a font size of 30 pt on an image resolution of 1000 x 1000 pixels. Images of different resolutions must maintain the proportion of image to watermark." SarahSV (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: That's ridiculous, a 30 pt watermark on a 1000 x 1000 pixel image on a Jumbotron is going to be nigh invisible.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: thanks. They may change it again in that case. The point is that they are trying to add and enforce requirements after they've released the videos. See, for example, en:File talk:Tobacco dependence 1.webm, where their rep says: "We'll need to edit or remove this video to abide by their requirements within 30 days." The requirements that he refers to include that "you retain the front (first 2 seconds of the video) and back bumper (the last 30 seconds of the video)", i.e. their logo, URL and other information. They posted this requirement on their site just yesterday, months after the releases. SarahSV (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
They would have had a case if they had used a CC 2.0 license and had been German: Commons:Watermarks#Legal issues with the removal of watermarks. (the wording was changed in 3.0 and 4.0) - Alexis Jazz 02:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Creative Commons FAQ: Can I insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit?: No. CC licenses allow for flexibility in the way credit is provided depending on the medium, means, and context in which a licensee is redistributing licensed material. For example, providing attribution to the creator when using licensed material in a blog post may be different than doing so in a video remix. This flexibility facilitates compliance by licensees and reduces uncertainty about different types of reuse—minimizing the risk that overly onerous and inflexible attribution requirements are simply disregarded.
  • Creative Commons FAQ: What if I change my mind about using a CC license? CC licenses are not revocable. Once something has been published under a CC license, licensees may continue using it according to the license terms for the duration of applicable copyright and similar rights. As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms.
  • Creative Commons FAQ: How do I properly attribute material offered under a Creative Commons license?: CC licenses have a flexible attribution requirement, so there is not necessarily one correct way to provide attribution. The proper method for giving credit will depend on the medium and means you are using, and may be implemented in any reasonable manner. Additionally, you may satisfy the attribution requirement by providing a link to a place where the attribution information may be found.
User:OsmoseIt it is not acceptable to Commons for you add further restrictions to the CC licence terms and publish them off-Commons on an external website, where the terms-and-conditions change on a daily basis. These files were uploaded in good faith under the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence, and they fit with Commons scope. It is therefore extremely unlikely that Commons will delete them nor any derivative works that comply with the CC BY-SA 4.0 terms. -- Colin (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't imagine there's any obligation on our part to follow new terms and conditions that Osmosis is trying to impose months after they uploaded the files, even if the specific additional terms were compatible with the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license—which seems questionable.
However, the back bumper – i.e. the last 30 seconds of the original video – contains the credits for the video: script writer and editors, illustrator, narrator, and sound effects. I firmly believe that we have an ethical obligation to preserve that information in some format, though not necessarily in the video itself. Editors who remove credits from the body of a video could reasonably transcribe those credits into the file description. (In some respects, that's a 'better' way to give them credit anyway, since it's a much more searchable format.) I suspect that we have a legal obligation to do so, as well, though hopefully someone with more legal expertise can comment on that aspect. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@TenOfAllTrades: Please see COM:OVERWRITE and COM:WATERMARK.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
ah, if they only knew to upload a hybrid with CC-by-NC with GFDL 1.2 only. maybe they can delete and upload a new version. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: While I am familiar with both of those policies, I don't see how they apply to the particular issue that I raised—that is, what I presume to be our obligation to preserve credit to the contributors of a video file when end-of-video credits are removed in the creation of a derivative work.
In creating File:Tobacco dependence 1.webm from File:Tobacco dependence.webm, the opening and closing bumpers and closing credits were removed; the video was otherwise unchanged. This removed the company logos from the beginning and end (which is legit under COM:WATERMARK, and the company is credited and linked on the file description page). But it also removed the end credits, which named seven individual contributors to the work in various capacities, including two creators of CC-BY-licensed sound effects that were included in the work.
When the end credits were stripped from the video file, no effort was made to maintain attribution and credit for those contributors. That's the problem I see, and which needs to be addressed. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the authors should be on the file description pages—and the company could have demonstrated their concern for proper attribution by including them in the first place. I also agree with the removal of the links to the spurious post facto limitations, but I believe the uploaders would still be entitled to add their desired attribution text to the {{CC BY-SA 4.0}} tags (which were left empty, at least the ones I looked at), or even replace them with a ‘branded’ version.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Odysseus1479 I don't think that is a fair comment about "the company could have demonstrated their concern for proper attribution". They attributed not only the copyright owners but the specific artists involved. They also indicated that the sound effects had an attribution licence that was not share-alike, though this falls a bit short of the best-practice attribution of CC-licensed material which should indicate specifically what licences and version the source work was used under, the titles of the works, and where they got it. They have done this in the video itself, which is in fact the best-practice location for attributing work-you-have-reused. There is no legal or moral obligation on them to repeat that attribution in some random Wiki template field that only Commons regulars would be familiar with. Those obligations rest with anyone removing that from the video.
For the purposes of licensing and further re-use, only the copyright owners of material need to be listed (Osmosis, and the two sound effect creators). The others (script, illustrations, narrator, editor, etc) are there simply as a courtesy, and it is a bit confusing for re-users that RexxS has added them to the CC template, rather than somewhere on description template. Ideally, we'd like to attribute the sound effects better, per best-practice, with links back to the source material and a mention that the license for them is just BY and not SA. My guess is the Mark Diangelo sounds are CC BY 3.0 and Pogotron sounds are CC Sampling Plus 1.0 which is a retired licence. -- Colin (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you find it confusing that I added the attribution to the CC-BY-SA licence template rather than in the description, Colin, but that's in fact exactly where Commons asks us to place attribution – and that's why the licence template {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}} has a parameter for that purpose. Hopefully as you edit more on Commons, these conventions will become more obvious to you.--RexxS (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that to be as fair as possible to all those who worked to produce the videos, I should have transcribed the detailed credits into the attribution parameter of the Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0 that was used in the derivatives. I'm guessing that the Osmosis uploader probably wasn't aware that it existed, so left it out of the originals. I've therefore added all the credits that I could find to each of the description pages of the derivatives that I created. I believe that is best practice. --RexxS (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, RexxS, much appreciated. Incidentally, one also wonders if Omosis' original video uploads are problematic in the way that they address the CC-BY sound effects they used. (Is just listing a name under "sound effects" in the video's on-screen credits sufficient?) TenOfAllTrades (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I am newish uploaded family pics, they were turned down, deleted but they are in the public domain from a newspaper article I wrote, any help please?

I created a page to my father a figure in British History some time ago. He was a criminal and known, and took his own life. I updated his page yesterday with family photos passed down to me. Parents both dead. I wanted the article for people to see that crime does not pay and headed each photo with the reason that he paid for his crimes. Every single photo was taken down which I now understand is for copyright reasons. I felt upset/stupid as my photos are mostly in the public domain as I wrote a large article for a newspaper some years ago, the photos were in it and on google images. If I use the ones strictly in the public domain how do I explain this and upload them. I have taken a bit of harsh words today especially with a cutting comment about what I do, It is obvious I am new and I thought this was a family and I always love peoples work and appreciate it so was saddened to see a harsh comment re my job. Anyway if anyone is kind enough please tell me if I can upload the pictures in the public domain. I was blocked etc... and don't really even understand how things stand now. Sorry to be a nuisance kareenzaKareenza (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kareenza: You likely did not provide a precise reason why the photos are in Public Domain and/or clear evidence for that. We require more precise information than newspapers as all our users are anonymous and nobody will know how to contact them if any problem appears in future. If copyright of the images has expired already, you can find appropriate license template in this table. If they are still copyrighted we need a free license permission from the copyright owner. If the copyright owner is unknown and so, they cannot sign a permission, the photo cannot be used in Wikimedia. Ankry (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Please note also, that the {{Own}} template can be applied only to photos that:
  • you made yourself as the photographer
  • were never published before upload to Commons.
Ankry (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
you could also try emailing commons:OTRS with a release and list of files, and eventually they might get undeleted. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Note additional discussion of exact same matter at Commons:Help desk#re a page a created and tried to upload photos, it is an article I wrote for the Mail On sunday, the pictures were my family ones. Kareenza may well own copyright, but I do not think any of these images would be in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 20:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Watermark

Hello. Does the "LOOK LEARN" watermark visible in this illustration from 1885 mean that I can't upload it to the Commons? (I can't find it anywhere without the watermark.) Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@DanielTom: You could upload the 373x512 preview at https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lookandlearn-preview/M/M841/M841820.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It's the same image. It still has a watermark. Is that okay? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 Comment (Edit conflict) Works by Walter Jenks Morgan are in the public domain. No article yet... Regards, Yann (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@DanielTom: Sorry, you could ask for watermark removal at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do so. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@DanielTom: Hold on a second.. I found a better version without watermark. Give me 10 minutes. Unfortunately, it's a bit oversaturated, but let me see what I can do. Storkk (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@DanielTom: see File:Una_and_the_Red_Cross_Knight_-_Walter_Jenks_Morgan.png. I also tried this source, but it was worse than the one I chose. Storkk (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow, cool! Thanks so much. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: @DanielTom: why not just click "Download preview"? That has no watermark. @Storkk: what source did you use? - Alexis Jazz 18:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Good catch. I didn't notice it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Added the page numbers. Is that what you meant, Alexis Jazz? Storkk (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Storkk: you said "I also tried this source, but it was worse than the one I chose." and linked to File:Una_and_the_Red_Cross_Knight_-_Walter_Jenks_Morgan.png, but that file also uses [6]. - Alexis Jazz 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
No. spenserforchild00spengoog is a different URL to spenserforchild01spengoog. The first ("00") is a book from the Harvard University collection, and has what I believe to be slightly better color scans. The second is one from Oxford University, and has slightly worse color scans. The first ("00") is the one that I claimed I used, and is the one that I did, in fact, use... which, not coincidentally, is I why I claimed I used it. Storkk (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The devil is, once again, in the details.. - Alexis Jazz 02:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Images posted by Edit.today101

I can see that the two images posted by Edit.today101 appear also on Amazon here and here, to illustrate items which have been on sale since before their date of publication on Wikimedia. I am wondering if they actually are personal work as indicated. Ydecreux (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It is spam. You can look at the Foot_arch_stretcher page. Edit.today101 may be related to User:Priscillalover. So, the uploader may well hold copyright and the license may be appropriate but this needs an OTRS confirmation. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Chairman McWatters Official Headshot.jpg

Is the quoted source part of the US Federal Government? This image was uploaded before (File:Lacey Crowley.jpg) and deleted (No OTRS permission for 30 days). Now uploaded by a "new" user. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

source National Credit Union Administration: "The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is the independent federal agency created by the United States Congress to regulate, charter, and supervise federal credit unions."
I don't see a problem. Are you sure File:Lacey Crowley.jpg is the same image? Who is Lacey Crowley? - Alexis Jazz 19:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
File:Lacey Crowley.jpg was not the same image. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry cut and paste picked up from wrong line, doh! File:J. Mark McWatters.jpg (Marking as possible copyvio because Not "Own work". Metadata shows Author as Steven Halperson tisaraphoto.com) Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
don't know why you would question a US government website. here is another one File:Fryzel300dpi.jpg. you realize we have thousands of head shots just like this one from the State Department? for example this one with no author, because transfer sucks File:Victoria Nuland State Department.jpg, and this one File:Gross-Powell.jpg with no source. they archive so poorly, it will be a long time before there is a CC or PD image of these living notable people. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The photo wasn't taken by a government employee, according to the exif data. It was taken by Steven Halperson of Tisara Photo. It is very probably a work for hire arrangement, but that doesn't make the photographer a government employee. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
work for hire = employee as opposed to contractor. you are speculating on who has the rights. (i.e. you do not know if they hired a contractor to come in one day, and also sign a release, and did not bother to change exif.) see also this one File:Jeffrey Zients official portrait.jpg "This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal" you really need to drop the "exif is true, and other metadata is false" line. these are all low risk items in use; the fact that the US government screws up the metadata is nothing new - are you here to provide encyclopedic content, or to delete things? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Slowking4, why are you being so aggressive and nasty about this? We're just discussing whether or not one image is properly licensed. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
you seem confused about what a work for hire is. we are discussing what your standard of practice is, or if you have one. we could spend our time deleting images with metadata problems, or we could work to improve that metadata, and mark the problems. to the extent you delete low risk items in use, you are harming the encyclopedic project. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Since I don't have the ability to delete anything, I guess I will continue "harming the encyclopedic project", then, with civil discussion about whether images are correctly licensed. I'm sure you'll keep doing whatever you think is best. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
never stopped deletion threats (or block threats) by others. why don't you upload one image? clearly by your edits, you are here to delete things. there is no civility enforcement on this website, but if you want to elevate this discussion, go for it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a big project and it needs people to volunteer in many areas. Some people will upload images, some people will look for copyright violations, some people will be nice, and a few will be insufferable assholes. We choose what we want to do. If I want to upload an image, I will, but if I don't, I'm still welcome to be here and work on whatever interests me. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
here would be your study guide -- Sean Illing, A Stanford psychologist on the art of avoiding assholes, Vox, September 26, 2017 Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chairman McWatters Official Headshot.jpg. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Sky-Logo2017.png

I'm wondering if Commons can accept this as {{PD-textlogo}}. The file is sourced to info.sky.de/inhalt/static/download/bilder/logos/Download JPG Unternehmen/Sky Signature.png, but the parent company of en:Sky Deutschland is the UK-based en:Sky plc, and the UK's threshold or orginality is quite low compared to some other countries; for example, English Wikipedia is treating essentially the same logo en:File:Sky plc logo.png as non-free. If Commons can accept this as PD, then it would seem to be able to also accept that non-free one on English Wikipedia as non-free as PD. This file is being used on quite a number of Wikipedia's other than English Wikipedia and some of these might allow COM:FAIR content to be uploaded like English Wikipedia does; so, if Commons cannot keep this, then perhaps it could be re-uploaded locally and used that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

File is being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sky-Logo2017.png so any new comments should probably be made there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Deprecate licenses that depend on but don't use death year?

I know that to do that completely would be a nigh-impossible task, but maybe we could at least ban new files with bare PD-Old and the like? To take one moot example, File:Step by step greene.jpg can correctly be held as PD-US, but it was also uploaded with a PD-Old tag. Except there's no listed death date for the artist, and I can't find one on the web; even the Library of Congress lists him without birth and death dates. He could have died any time after 1919, with a slim chance he made it to the 21st century. We have files all over Commons in similar situations, where PD-Old is used but there's no reason to trust it. Can we demand that new uploads that use licenses that depend on death dates actually include a death date, instead of a handwave?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We need an exception for very old works. I don't think that we should demand a death year if the uploader states that the work was created or published more than 200 years ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I wrote COM:WORSTCASE about that. That isn't a policy suggestion, it just looks at when it's no longer physically possible for the author to not have been dead for a number of years. Some people use the debated {{PD-old-assumed}} template. I don't think 120 is enough.
I was just thinking of asking if {{PD-old-auto-1923}} and similar templates could be adjusted so they could also take a "before" deathyear. (instead of an "in" deathyear) I know I can use {{PD-old-70-1923}}, but a while ago I tagged a file {{PD-old-60-1923}} and that won't automatically change to 70 after a few years. Actually, it may make more sense to make the template accept a year of creation. - Alexis Jazz 23:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
PD-old-100 is a better tool for that than PD-old, and PD-old-assumed is clear about it being 120 years old. There's some magic bureaucracy that some people seem to claim that PD-old-assumed needs to go through, but it seems to be bureaucracy for the sake of avoiding the clear consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hardly bureaucracy, it's a question of completely missing policy changes and meaningful guidelines. Right now, the application of PD-old-assumed truly sucks and is as often used to justify hosting files which should be deleted as those which actually are over 120 years old. --Fæ (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Your one example of that was on Wikimedia for seven years under a PD-old license before spending six months under a PD-old-assumed license. We host tons of files which should be deleted under other licenses; why should PD-old-assumed be any different?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stick to the facts. The number of images under the PD-old-assumed license has halved in a couple of months. That is because it is routinely applied incorrectly to images where the uploader cannot be bothered to do any checks whatsoever. Commons should not be hosting photographs just because they "look" old enough.
--Fæ (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure we could run a bot that would replace the PD-old-assumed license with the PD-old license and go back to tagging PD-old-assumed items with PD-old. It wouldn't make these files any better tagged, but it'd end this argument. Right now, the application of PD-old truly sucks and is as often used to justify hosting files that should be deleted as those which are actually from authors who died more than 70 years ago.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Strangely enough it would be better. At least with PD-old, nobody believes it is adequate and everyone wants to use a better license. In comparison when an uploader slaps PD-old-assumed on a file, there is a presumption that it is probably valid, when in fact nobody actually knows how it can legally apply or not, as there are no meaningful guidelines or consensus on how it should be used. --Fæ (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
yeah, we could actually research licenses and improve metadata, but no one trusts anyone, to actually do research, and put remainder in "unknown". everyone's perpetual arguing about bright lines creates the sub-optimal status quo. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

File:BalHarbourFlag2017.png

I'm not sure this should be licensed as "cc-by-sa-4.0" without OTRS verification. However, it might be OK as {{PD-textlogo}} since it seems fairly simple or even as {{PD-FLGov}} if the flag is the same one being discussed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably PD-FLGov, though it sounds like the uploader is the probably the person who prepared the graphic for the town, so it may not be completely false. Not sure that I would remove the existing tag, though adding PD-FLGov may make sense. I think it may be a bit above PD-textlogo. Technically, the exiting tag may need OTRS verification, though if the graphic of that size was not previously available, that may be enough to avoid. Not sure it's worth spending too much time on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Carl. I've added {{PD-FLGov}} per your suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Air Chief Marshal Pratap Chandra Lal.jpg

File is described as photo of a portrait displayed in a museum. While the photo might be a simple mechanical reproduction and thus not eligible for copyright per Commons:2D copying, I'm not sure if the same can automatically be assumed for the portrait itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This work of art is not old, so we need the permission from the artist. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Yann. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Measuring instruments and other stuff surrounding a scan of an old book

I found this old dusty book 📖 from the Tokugawa Shogunate, however these scans were made with various other objects surrounding the book, could this still be considered to be "in the public domain"? Note 📝: I don't have the tools to cut the book out from the rest of "the clutter". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Upload mistake

Who can I remove a photo (File:Argyle location.jpg) that I uploaded by mistake? It is not my own work and I don't own the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanwill (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion. Ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Kim Juhyun

All files except File:대한민국 총리 고건 서울종합방재센터 방문70.JPG have EXIF/file description which says "누구인지 구별 가능한 특정 인물이 사진에 포함되어 있을 경우 사용 전에 서울특별시 소방재난본부 및 해당 인물의 승인을 받으셔야합니다. 감사합니다.". This translates to "If there is any personally identifiable person in the image, you have to (nb. more of 'must' nuance.) get a permission from "Seoul Metropolitan City Fire/Disaster response center" and the respective person's approval for usage". I'm not sure if this is an acceptable (copyright or non-copyright) restriction for Commons image. — regards, Revi 09:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • "personally identifiable person" matter is a Non-copyright restriction. According to the related page, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations." also, there is no problem in this case since the example image depicts the persons' normal business. Puramyun31 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Add {{Personality rights}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

File:DD News Logo 2015.jpg

File is licensed under a "cc-by-sa-4.0" license which seems unlikely given that a variation of the logo used here and the fact that the uploader has a history of uploading content under incorrect licenses or without proper permission. The question, however, is whether it can be converted to {{PD-logo}} given that the country of origin appears to be India since COM:TOO#India seems to imply that in some older cases the UK's TOO is followed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Attribution 2.5 Generic (CC BY 2.5)

Is this Creative Commons license compatible with Wikimedia Commons? I don't see any "no commercial" restrictions anywhere. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you were searching for CC BY-NC 2.5. CC BY is compatible. CC BY-NC is non-compliant and disallowed as the sole license to use but can be allowed only if dual-licensed with another license allowing free use, like GFDL (i.e. {{GFDL-1.3-only}} or {{GFDL-1.2}}). --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@George Ho: , no I meant "CC BY 2.5" only, so it is compatible, now that's good. Thank you for your swift reply. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a template, {{Cc-by-2.5}}, which you can use. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, Donald. Here is the page about compatibility with CC BY-SA versions. --George Ho (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan Central Weather Bureau

File:中央氣象局107008號地震報告.gif

https://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/information.htm

Do we have a template for this? - Alexis Jazz 09:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: There is {{GWOIA}} which has exactly this licence text. You just need to add the url to the Weather Bureau's licence page and the institution's name. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: @Jcb: we have a problem here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
This template is not recognized by the system as a valid license. Newly created license templates must be reviewed and added to the list of accepted licenses by an administrator before they are used. Jcb (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: Would you please advice on the proper procedure to get a license template formally recognized? I did a search on "list of accepted licenses" in the Commons namespace but found nothing helpful. --Wcam (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Probably the best thing to do is to leave a request at COM:AN. Several admins are familiar with this specific process and I am not one of them. Jcb (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb, De728631, and Alexis Jazz: I am a Taiwanese Wikimedian. I can confirm that GWOIA is a universal agreement in Taiwanese government, just like CC 3.0. You even can find the announcement in the Office of Taiwanese president website. I think it's enough to avoid delete those files.

By the way, there a similar file. Aotfs2013 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is simply another case of {{Attribution}} so I suggest we add the that template to {{GWOIA}} to get an output as seen here. That said, Commons:License template validation has not been adopted as a guideline and Both Commons:Image copyright tags visual and Commons:Copyright tags have always been edited by non-admins. So I'd like to see the policy that requires approval of newly created license templates. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: how about Template:GWOIA/Sandbox? I think that would solve it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes that may work, but imo the boxes shouldn't be nested because you get a second frame for the "attribution" part. These individual template boxes are usually stacked instead. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: that's just a matter of preference. Stacking is also fine. Will you do that? If you do it can be tested and if it works as expected Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Please make GWOIA template a license template can be closed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the main Template:GWOIA accordingly and it works from a technical perspective. Now let's wait for approval at the admin board. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Photos from Press Information Bureau (PIB)

Hi, This is an issue that we have gone over in the past at an extensive un-deletion discussion here ([7]) and then a follow-up discussion I had on Magog the Ogre's talk page here ([8]). I did a quick search through this forum's archives and also found this ([9]) which was the most recent one. However, recently I came across this image File:Ram Nath Kovind 2017.jpg which was attributed to PIB. I have specific questions on this - (1) Are we now allowed to upload images released under PIB on Commons? (2) If I understand the wording correctly, now, can this be extended to Indian Government ministry websites? To be more specifc, can we now upload images from Indian Army and Indian Air Force? The only reason I ask is not bring anyone in trouble but to get a clarity on what current status of this issue is. Even in the past discussions we have different editors who had different views about this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: The discussion has been moved here now. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: I don't think until we've a clear OTRS permission from the Army and the Air Force, we can upload these images. I say this because, images from these websites have always been an issue, and were ultimately deleted in most of the cases. However, now considering {{GODL-India}}, I think this is a good opportunity. But I am not one hundred percent confident about validity of the template. You might also want to look at the discussion on the template's talk page as well, issues were raised by editors in the past. So before extensively using this template, please have a community wide discussion (ideally a RfC), especially considering its potential usage; images from all Indian government websites is a pretty big lot. Pinging the template creator as well, @Jkadavoor: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 16:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Does this template at least mean that PIB images can be uploaded? I understand that Indian Air Force and Indian Army might require a longer discussion. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Yes; any data owned by the Goverment of India or its agencies (states, institutions, ministries, etc.) that are not confidential in nature are now free to reuse with modification and commercial use rights per the order of the parliament published in the Gazette of India. This overrides any previous reservations or rights granted. See Template:GODL-India and NDSAP for more details. Jee 02:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: I am saying that there should be a discussion about the template itself in-general. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 04:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The template now has 63 transclusions only. But considering all the goverement departments, agencies and ministries, that is fairly a very large count of images, say 10,000 or may be more. So please have a community wide discussion about valid usage of the template, and arrive at a consensus. As the statement is not as clear as PD-US, I am advising this just to be on the safe side. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 04:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Link to the previous discussion in this board. Jee 14:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur with @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: that this does involve a huge amount of images and we before we embark on an endeavor to upload them. We need a community wide consensus on this. I am going to ping some editors who were involved in the past to see if we are all in agreement on this. @LX: , @Yann: , @Jameslwoodward: , @Clindberg: , @RP88: , @1989: , @Christian Ferrer: and @Elcobbola: . Thoughts on this? Is only PIB okay for now or can we extend this to others? Sorry for pinging a bunch of people. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Please a have a look at this. Also notified the Indian community mailing list, and other social media groups for better and increased participation. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 17:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the document at https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/Gazette_Notification_OGDL.pdf is an acceptable license for Commons. First, it is explicitly revocable, see section 7c. Commons requires an irrevocable license. Second, it applies only if the agency publishing the data has the right to do so. There is explicitly no warranty of that (see 4d). A user could, therefore, publish an image in a book, for example, and then find after the fact that it was a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Keep the content from the Indian government I interpret 7c to mean that the Indian Government may revoke a license if it mistakenly applied it. The circumstances that it names for revocation include if it has applied a license to a logo or personal information. It is true that Creative Commons licenses are supposed to be irrevocable, but in this digital age of mass uploads we at Wikimedia Commons have routinely removed licenses and content upon seeing plausible evidence that someone uploaded the content in error. In this section 7c it does not seem to me like the government is seeking to assert a right to change their minds or policies later, but just saying that they will clarify in case of error about some specific cases which usually should be obvious if any human reviews them. This entire text conflates trademark and copyright, which is typical enough, and this revocation right seems to want to protect trademarks, and not the copyrighted content which Wikimedia Commons collects.
I am not worried about the lack of warranty in 4d. This happens in lots of mass uploads, including collects of the United States Federal Government and many archives with high variability. My interpretation of this is that they intend for works by central government employees to be open content with open licenses, but sometimes these websites might include the work of non-governmental employees because not everyone who works for the government and publishes to the website understands open content. When that happens, the government copyright policy does not apply.
I will share a US government example. Before I do, note that my example is not perfect, and I am just describing a general situation. In the United States, the government requires that prescription drugs have a package insert giving instructions for using the drug. The US government has the public repository of these drug instructions and warnings. Any example of a en:medication package insert will look familiar to anyone in the United States or many other countries. Despite this information being a right for consumers to have, and despite the US government being the only official publisher and editor of this content, this information actually has pharma company copyright. A large amount of US federal government publications are like this.
Note - please do not look too hard. It seems like sentences and passages from all these research documents get copied around because protecting copyright is not a priority in these public documents, but I am sharing this more as an example of what happens than a solid case which is familiar to me.
Overall I think the intent of the Indian government is to provide open content and we can accept that. Maybe we need limits and review but there is something here, and it is not as if works of the US federal government which are even built into the Commons upload process are perfect. Commons has a standard and this Indian content might align with our expectations such as the US government imprecise copyright practices. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:Bluerasberry; this is my understanding too. The only way a GODL license get revoked is the content was mistakenly licensed. This is applicable to any other licenses too. Jee 03:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Note the use of the words "permanent right to use the data" in the preamble. Note also the little contradictory sentence "...and for the duration of existence of such rights" in the section Permissible Use of Data. One can think this sentence has an aspect of something revocable that tells us if we withdraw our license you lose the rights accosted by the license, but one can also understand that the duration does not end as long as the conditions explicitly explained at the section 7 "Termination" are meet. And there is nothing in this section 7 that says the license could be revoked other than a failure to comply with the terms or than with the identification and discovery of licensed data (that should be) exempted from the license. To contradict a bit the analysis of Jim, if we compare to Wikimedia Commons, we could dare to make an analogy with the copyright violations deleted here, I mean when we identify/discover a copyright violation, the irrevocable license in the file page is no longer valid for the simple and first reason that this license was in the fact not applicable in first instance and we delete the file; In other words we delete an illegitimate publication of the file, I think they describe the exact same thing that we do with the copyvios here: when/if they identify/discover a data published under the said license, and if this data is listed the section 6 then the license is no longer applicable (should never have been applied) to this data. And there is no more warranty (section 4d) there for "liability for any errors or omissions", than there is here warranty that 100% of the Wikimedia Commons files are not copyright violations. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Is GODL is equivalent to CC0 ? I would like take data from Data.gov.in site to commons. [10] . Is there any restriction that, Data:... .tab can be only CC0 in commons ? example:- Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/New York City.tab -- Naveenpf (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
GODL is an attribution license, similar to Open Government Licence. As attribution is needed, its not equivalent to CC0; but free enough for Commons. Jee 01:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Andor Z. Kún published 1920; cover of printing of notes 1918/19

I would like to upload a photo (portrait of Andor Z. Kún) to illustrate my article about André von Kún. This photo was published in the Hungarian magazine Ország Vilag 26.9. 1920, page 39. The photographer was Rezsö Papp. It is not possible to determine when Rezsö Papp died. Is it possible to upload the photo?

Also I would like to upload the cover of a printing of notes from Kún (Op. 28 - Receruca -nóta, Szöveget irta: Kalman Tibor, Zeéjet szerzette: Zombori Kún Andor. Copyright by: Komédia Budapest 1919) Is that allowed? I have also a cover from a printing of notes from 1918 (Op. 13 - Béke induló (Andor Z. Kún). Musikverlag Kálmán Nádor, Budapest 1918.) Maybe this cover is allowed, because it is 100 years old?

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastenaci (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It is in public domain in USA as {{PD-US-1923}}. I am not sure about Hungary and the copyright law that was in force in 1911. From this book it appears that according to the Copyright Act of 1884 in force at that time (and until 1970) the term of protection for photographs was only 5 years. Ruslik (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Being granted permission to upload all media by a deceased author

I would like to know if it's possible to be granted permission to upload all media by a deceased author via the usual OTRS. As in, an email is sent to the OTRS team that grants the permission to upload the media of an author under a CC license. In this case Ayik Umar Said. Aumars (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aumars: Yes, with the permission of the heir(s).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Cover of "Flights by Olga Tokarczuk".jpg

Not sure if book covers can be uploaded? ALso if they can, I'm not sure what license this is. Please help. Thanks! ⇒ Lucie Person (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That particular book cover is {{PD-text}}, Lucie Person. This is not true for most book covers and most book covers with any graphics on it at all cannot be uploaded here. For this specific one, I have made the necessary changes on the file information page for you. --Majora (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: , Thanks so much! I appreciate it! ⇒ Lucie Person (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: bjh21 (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Problem with FlickreviewR 2

I have just uploaded three Flickr images using the Upload Wizard:

I initially failed to specify the source URLs, and FlickreviewR 2 added error messages to the file pages. So I added the Flickr URLs and restored the {{Flickrreview}} tags. FlickreviewR 2 has now passed the images, but says that the licenses do not match the cc-by-2.0 in the Flickr pages. But the licenses in the Commons file pages are {{Cc-by-2.0}}. Is this a bug? Otherwise, what have I done wrong, and how can I fix it? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You had no licenses at all on the file information pages, Verbcatcher. The bot works off of what is on the file information page versus what is in Flickr. Nothing does not equal Cc-by-2.0. That's why the message says that. --Majora (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I had inadvertently deleted the {{Cc-by-2.0}} when I removed the error message. But the current files look odd, FlickreviewR has added a license and contradictory message about 'the licence given above'. I will try again to clean it up by adding {{Cc-by-2.0}} and {{Flickrreview}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: bjh21 (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Slovenia work for hire

So I found 11 videos from a Vimeo user called Kinomotel (Special:Search/insource:"Kinomotel") and I was about to DR them since this is a work for hire for various companies but then I did some searching and found http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129663. If you look at article 99 #3 you'll see the section in question (search for work for hire to make it easier, it is only mentioned once). Am I reading that right? If I was going by US rules then the work for hire would belong to the client but Slovenia apparently does the opposite? Unless specifically outlined in a contract. There doesn't seem to be anything about this in our copyright info on the country (which is much more in depth than many other sections already) so I wanted to double check with others here. Thoughts? --Majora (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

what is the proper license template of Polish traffic signs

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Znak_A-13.svg#mw-jump-to-license is clearly incomplete and seems to be too complex for PD-shape. I am asking here as I expect that there is a reason why it is viable to keep it. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I pinged author of the file at https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Julo#Znaki_drogowe_-_licencja Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to help of uploader I managed to find PD-Polishsymbol Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: bjh21 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Taipei Taihoku Oveview 12.jpg

There is a problem with the old photo("File:Taipei Taihoku Oveview 12.jpg") uploaded by User:Hst0129, but I'm not sure if this is a copyright issue. Because I see many photos like this:

There are more photos not listed.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Kabir at Wikimedia event in Nigeria.jpg

Are the banner and photos DM?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I say yes because the image would also work without them. --Magnus (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It is pretty clear that the small photos are entirely out of focus and incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph. The photo is DM. Regards. T Cells (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"California Fish and Wildlife" insource:"public domain mark" (example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/californiadfg/34501154613/)

@AntiCompositeNumber: thought {{PD-CAGov}} would apply. I guess the question is if https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=6254 covers photographs. The vibe I get is that it's just for text documents. I hope I'm wrong, otherwise I wish everyone a merry mass deletion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

cannot come to the decision

Can we finish the discussion and make a decision regarding this file? File:Kosarev and Bogachev repressions USSR.jpg It could not be in permanent limbo. I propose to change the tag to {{PD-old-70-1996}} and keep it. There is a detailed explanation on the nomination page. Thanks, --Armenius vambery (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Photo shows "Doritos packaging"

I want to confirm before uploading. Is "this photo" a copyright violation? As you can see, the photo shows "Doritos packaging" in Taiwan.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kai3952: Yes, please see COM:PACKAGING.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Good evening,

My name is Beth Rooks, I am the Director of Communications at Briarcrest Christian School in Eads, TN. Someone has gone to our school site and photoshopped a ghosted photo of male genitalia in our logo. You have my permission to shut our site down immediately. I have been dealing with this for months. This person has continued to write inaccurate info and now has added this. He is a former student who has an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.153.210 (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I've marked the upload for speedy deletion and cleaned up the article in question. --Majora (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Photo Credits

Hi, I am happy to share my photos in Wikimedia Commons but I am used to sign all my photos (water mark). Is there any inconvenience to send my photos with my water mark? Thanks. Pipo Coda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipo Coda (talk • contribs) 08:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pipo Coda: Yes, please see COM:WATERMARK.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pipo Coda: There is inconvenience so you are encouraged to remove the watermark, but you can send your photos. If they get used on Wikipedia articles someone will probably try to remove any visible watermarks, the result of that may not be pretty. So it would be a good idea to remove any high visibility watermarks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

British Library copyright in photos of public domain manuscripts

Hi. I lately uploaded two photographs of a letter by Lord Byron, which I took from the British Library's website (File:Byron letter.JPG and File:Letter by Byron.jpg). I now see that both of those Commons pages sport a notice claiming that the British Library Board holds the copyright. Have I messed up? --Antiquary (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No, public domain is public domain, plus the BL has encouraged our volunteers to take and upload PD images from the website. --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have assumed I was in the clear but for that unsettling copyright notice. --Antiquary (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
i see the "© GG Byron" and the "All text is British Library and is available under Creative Commons Attribution Licence except where otherwise stated". institutions have difficulty letting go; BL are by no means the worst, i.e. IWM "IWM's websites are copyright of the Imperial War Museums (© IWM), whilst the copyright in the material which is hosted on IWM’s websites will belong to IWM as well as other third parties." [11]; and Smithsonian "The Smithsonian invites visitors to use its online content for personal, educational and other non-commercial purposes." [12]. we tend to show the public domain, regardless of other means to restrict it, by fear uncertainty and doubt. have not had a DMCA takedown from these institutions. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Old public domain of Dalida

Is there any way to upload photos that I have in my private collection that became public domain in France, Swiss, Belgium, Germany Spain and Italy long time ago? I have around 500 photos that my parents left me as postcards of Dalida. They were taken from 50s to 80s when they were literally free given from her hands to fans. It would be same thing as thr main photo of Cher, a postcar scan. I used to upoload several od them but I didn't provide valid licence and they were deleted. Then I tought I can upload it to wiki only if I buy the licence of same pic from internet, and I found same photo on Getty, but oviously I was wrong and the photo is deleted. Thus the Getty page describes that photo can be used anywhere anytime in any shape... So can any of those postcards be uploaded as they were public domain in those countries? already long time ago? ○ DalidaIdeal ○ talk ○ 08:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@DalidaEditor: When do you think these photos "became public domain in France, Swiss, Belgium, Germany Spain and Italy", and why those dates?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: There are a lot of postcard photos, behind each other is not full date but only year of release. Language on the behalf proves country of release. 《 DalidaIdeal 》《 talk 》 09:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@DalidaEditor: Since the artist made almost her entire carrier in France from the 60's and knowing the 70-years period it would be hardly surprising that these publicity stills be public domain in France (and Belgium and Germany as well)... It seems that only photographs with no artistic value taken in Italy, Spain and Switzerland could be eligible to Commons. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: Okay so I can upload photos that are "non artistic value"(behind Dalida are visible some mistakes, people moving, she quickly shooted in moving pose etc). Those photos are taken mostly by fans. What source should I provide then if the photo was already published par example on pinterest? Second thing; are there any trustable pages from where I can publish her photos and as source, provide the link to that page? On Getty there are all photos of Dalida with credits to specific photographer or Copyright holder. The photo File: Dalida 1961.jpg is from someones collection, and then the person uploaded in wiki. For proving who is the photographer and who holds the rights, the person provided link to that same photo on Getty. I have a lot of PDomain photos of Dalida that are also published on Getty. Why can't I add them on wiki commons and as link provide Getty page. I would also put Public Domain of Italy and PD 1996, so the photo is fully by standards for wiki commons... those photos I am talking about are scans of postcard and have no copyright mark on back side. Also they have year and country of release written. So everything is fine then, they are not owned by Getty, they are PD that are alvaible for buying on Getty page. Am I correct? Dalida Editor please ping or message me 16:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@DalidaEditor: The "artistic value" is only mentionned in Italian and Swiss laws, so you can only upload photographies shot in Italy and Switzerland (and Spain because the 25-years period has elapsed). Photographies, postcards, posters, etc taken in France (like the ones you're talking about in your talk page : https://static2.iodonna.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/03-1961-GettyImages-104410620-483x480.jpg, https://static2.iodonna.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/17-1972-GettyImages-599803737-640x427.jpg) are still copyrighted because the 70-years period hasn't elapsed. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: okay super, I will upload then several photos and I'll notice people on wiki to check them. I will folow rules: Italy, Swiss, Spain: expired. Non artistic value. And btw you made mistake... these 2 links that you have taken from my talk are the photos that are published in Italy, it is taken from Italian site. Haven't you read the names in the link and visited the page? Dalida Editor please ping or message me 18:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: https://static2.iodonna.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/03-1961-GettyImages-104410620.jpg and https://static2.iodonna.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/17-1972-GettyImages-599803737.jpg are more interesting. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
That first shot was taken at the Olympia in Paris in 1961, probably by a French photographer. Why is anyone assuming it is public domain? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: No, it was taken in Olympia in late 1957 or early 1958. Second photo is Dalida with Alain Delon singing. Both photos don't have artistic value. I think they are public domain because they are published in Italian magazine, the provided links. Dalida Editor please ping or message me 20:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The French agency which leased it to Getty says 1961. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
As said above there's no "artistic value" in French law. If shot in France (The Olympia music-hall in Paris for the 1st one, The recording of 'Paroles... Paroles...' in France too) then the French law applies and the copyright runs to 2031 for the 1st and 2043 for the 2nd. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: okay, but still it is false info for 1961. It is in 1957/58... Getty doesn't know what is he doing. One more thing, can I publish scans of postcards of Dalida? They were immediately PD in France when they were released because there is no copyright mark indicated on behind side, only year of release and country. It is logical that they were instantly PD because they were hand free given by Dalida herself, and were available as an free addition in newspapers in shape of posters. Dalida Editor please ping or message me 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: @DalidaEditor: I've already said to you as early as December 2017 : owning a copy of an original picture (like your recent purchase at Getty) doesn't give you any licensing rights. These belongs exclusively to the photographer. As far as I know, I've never heard about "immediate public domain in France". To be clear, since the artist was living in France since around 1955 no photograph of her made in France is public domain by now. The first ones will be in 2025 (1955+70). Please confirm you've understood : I'm not sure Administrators will tolerate 30 more copyvios. Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: Small card released in France in the 1970s has on front side the photo of Dalida. Behind is an icon of Orlando productions without any indication that copyrights are reserved to author of photo. also on back side is list of recent record releases of Dalida (promotion) and at the below is the name of official Dalida fan-club, its address and telephone number. The US law says if the photo was released in United States before 1977 without any copyright indication on it, then the photo is immediately public domain in US. It the same thing for other countries? I can't find neither no neither yes... Is it logical that in any country where photographer decides to release its image without indication that he holds copyright to that photo, the photo is public domain? Dalida Editor please ping or message me 18:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@DalidaEditor: No there's no such exception to the copyright as it exists in the U.S.A.. But be practical : since you're the chairman of the Dalida fan-club, it will be easy for you to contact both Orlando productions or Universal Music France and propose them to release their archive stills under a free license... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: That won't happend. I have talked to Orlando who holds all right to those photos that are well known, but he offered to me edited photos. He doesn't want to put any of original in public domain, he only offers some photos to appear in books, even now when I am writing my own book he hardly accepted that I use at least one photo from 1976, for the main cover... we will see in a decade or two, is Luigi G. going to act differently. The sad thing is that I have took only few photos during her concerts, and none of them has good quality. It would be nice if someone opens it's collection. Dalida Editor please ping or message me 07:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@DalidaEditor: what does "he offered to me edited photos"? Edited how? "The sad thing is that I have took only few photos during her concerts, and none of them has good quality." If they are not completely unusable, please send the photos you have taken yourself to OTRS. We currently have no Dalida concert photos at all, anything we might have is questionably licensed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: For that "offered me edited"; his words were literally "We won't make any of her photos free, you can have photoshops if you want, I am not going further." He ordered dozens of photoshoped pics of Dali after her death. Her face sticked to some girls body, or photo from her concert with complete background change, or cut Dalida and place her in Ancient Greek temple... the thing is that he only wants "shitty" photos to be licence free, and that is not suitable for wiki at all. But I understand him, he has all photos of his sister that he doesn't want to give off easily.

But in other hand we have plenty of photos of Dalida that are made in Italy before 1977. They were uploaded ba Lethiernois or something.. why can't those photos remain? They are not ownership of Getty, they all have became PD back in 1997. Getty just found them online and added a watermark on them. I have all those photos in my collection, many of them were of my parents that they bought during 60s 70s... my photos are even better quality than Getty.... remember that Getty photo that you deleted "Dalida 1974"? Well I had it in my collection, approx 4K resolution, and I tought that I can upload it on wiki only if buy it from Getty => I will get licence/copyright. And I bought the best resolution that Getty offers, but I recieved a photo with a less resoultion than the one I have. Bye 500€. And also I don't understand why is that photo deleted after all? It was made on Italian Tv in 1974.... it is before 1977. Dalida Editor please ping or message me 21:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@DalidaEditor: I didn't delete anything. Didym did, I just reported it. If you have missed the entire discussion about simple and artistic photographs from Italy that took place on your talk page and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Adding license for photos of Getty Images it's too bad because I'm not going to explain it all again. Getty likely doesn't own them, the photographer does. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I understood everything, I just wanted to say that photos of Dalida that Lethiernois uploaded are totally fine. 20-year period has elapsed. Dalida Editor please ping or message me 23:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@DalidaEditor: 20-year period does not apply to artistic photographs. Most of them are very likely to be artistic. (are you really sure you understood everything?) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@DalidaEditor: Of course I understand everything, only thing I didn't know is your opinion is that they are artistic. I am approving their upload because I have graduated at the GOGSS, graphic school, photography department and photo editing. I can send you a diploma if you want, photography is my occupation LOL. Also there is a good explanation on Adding license for photos of Getty Images from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard by @Blackcat: . Dalida Editor please ping or message me 23:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@DalidaEditor: A lawyer, a vocalist and a photographer walk into a bar.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Wait, if a photograph is artistic even if taken before 1976 there's little we can do. Probably nothing. We must rely on non artistic photographs. As for the relatives, that's an old problem. IMHO copyright should estinguish with the death of the subject so no one can have a free meal with their work. But alas, we are far from that. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Modern stained glass

Another question: what's the copyright position with regard to photos of modern stained glass windows in British churches? --Antiquary (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Antiquary: {{FoP-UK}} doesn't cover two-dimensional graphic works. If the stained glass is only a small part of the picture it will be covered as {{De minimis}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
That's interesting, but now I've looked into this further and I'm starting to wonder whether stained glass is, for legal purposes, a "graphic work" at all. Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom suggests that it's a "work of artistic craftsmanship", which is quite a different thing, and more kosher for our purposes. That page cites the case of Hensher -v- Restawhile for the view that stained glass "might be [so] considered", which is perhaps a slightly tentative way of phrasing it. Any thoughts? --Antiquary (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I think there's a rough consensus on Commons for treating stained-glass work (and mosaics) as works of artistic craftsmanship (and not graphic works) and hence subject to FoP. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-06#File:Tudeley church window4.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Angel window - geograph.org.uk - 880160.jpg. --bjh21 (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, both to you and to Alexis. Antiquary though I am I've uploaded a fair few images of modern glass over the last few years, so I'm relieved they won't have to be deleted. --Antiquary (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The same conclusion was reached at Commons:Deletion requests/Murals in Wales. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Giving others the right to sell my photos? I don´t want that

Propaganda comic to advocate against "non-commercial" licences

Hello, I only recently joined and contributed my first photo. I am glad to contribute it for sharing for non-profit use and for non-commercial purposes, including in presentations, but I do not want it used for commercial purposes, e.g. for companies to sell their products. Is there a type of license that specifies this, or if I donate something to Wikimedia Commons it automatically becomes sellable by anyone? In that case I will not upload any more photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinsvad (talk • contribs) 13:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I can understand your feelings, but Wikimedia Commons only includes images that can also be used for commercial purposes. Of these seven most regularly used CC licenses only the first three (CC-zero, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA) are allowed when uploading images to Wikimedia Commons -and all 3 allow commercial usage (with attribution). One of the options you have is to add extra information to the license of your photographs (like {{attribution|Karinsvad (Wikimedia)}} ), so you would at least always be attributed. Vysotsky (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Well Slowking4 seems to license his uploads under the GFDL 1.2 and a CC-BY-NC license, see File:Teresa bruce 5190412.jpg as an example. Perhaps someone can explain how this works and is in keeping with Commons policy. Nthep (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nthep: GFDL licenses are rather onerous to comply with for non-text data because the licenses must be present in full (rather than by reference) with the data, and most readers and viewers would prefer to see the pretty pictures rather than wade through legalese in a book or on a poster or t-shirt (for example).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that, so while its obeying the letter of the "law", it's not entirely in keeping with the spirit of Commons principle of re-use. So it's an option for the OP to license their uploads the same way. Nthep (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
LOL, you mean the spirit of commons here - Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed ?? you should expect photographers who do not want to share the Highsmith experience to use GFDL 1.2 only, but SA could work also, if anyone would enforce it by lawsuit. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Karinsvad: If would like to make your photos available to the public under a non-commercial license, there are other hosting sites that allow that, such as Flickr. Alternatively, you could upload lower-resolution versions of your photos to Wikimedia Commons and reserve the full-resolution versions for your own use and sale, though there are caveats to that practice depending on your jurisdiction (see [13]). The full Creative Commons FAQ is a good resource to help you determine how best to license your photos. clpo13(talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Clpo13: That's probably not a good advice, as the high resolution version may be uploaded to Commons if the low resolution is published under a free license. This is quite controversial, and was debated in the past (see archive of this page). Regards, Yann (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
That is true. I linked the Creative Commons FAQ that discusses the pitfalls of that practice. clpo13(talk) 15:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Karinsvad: Please refer to the cartoon on the right :) Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Question re album cover copyright

I see a number of record album covers on Commons. I'm interested in adding this one on Commons. I know nothing about its copyright, except that this album cover was used in 1967 and exists on Discogs. Can I do that without being in violation of copyright laws? For comparison File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg is a 1967 album release and found here on Commons. Maile66 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66: Probably not. File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg was allowed because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. See Commons:Hirtle chart for further explanation. Does the album cover you specified meet those conditions (noting that the cover has generally been printed as one piece consisting of front and back, plus inside for double albums)?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: What does this copyright filing mean? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: That appears to be a record of an attempted renewal in 2009-07-27 for a copyright that was not registered in the first place, for four works allegedly created 1967-06-04. Such attempt appears to have been 2009-28-1967=14 years too late, but according to COM:HIRTLE that is now moot, the only real question is if there was perfect notice. On that point, File:Are You Experienced - US cover.jpg says 'produced and published in the US before 1978; no copyright notice was found on the album cover (front or back) or on the LP itself (only photo & art direction credits and statement "Performance Rights on All Selections: BMI")'. See also images of the back cover and LP label at https://www.flickr.com/photos/12998963@N03/3021504077. Thus, the US album cover and album "Are You Experienced" have never been copyrighted, are in the public domain, and may be used freely.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: if we are really sure about that, why don't we upload the whole album? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I don't have a copy. How about you, @Davepape?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The album, as per the sound recording, is a pre-1972 US work and thus didn't need or didn't benefit from notice, and is protected under state laws in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: The US has many states, depending on exactly what laws apply it may or may not be in the public domain. (is my understanding of this) Recordings published in the US 15 Feb. 1972 through 1977 without notice (through 28 February 1989 without notice and without subsequent registration) would be PD, obviously that won't be Hendrix but I wonder what could be out there. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It may be useful to read Velvet Underground Files New Complaint in Odd Banana Album Cover Case which deals with a similar case (settled without ruling on the copyright status). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Are you saying that the copyright registration listed in the US copyright catalog is not valid? If it's in the database doesn't that mean a copyright extension was granted? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
There's no copyright extension possible for a 1967 work; if it didn't fall into the public domain due to lack of copyright notice, it would get the full 95 years of copyright, with or without a renewal. Renewals give the right to cancel licenses and stuff, but no longer extend copyright. There's Copyright Office correspondence attached; I'm curious what it says. As Jeff G. said, it's too late for a proper renewal, so I don't know what that notice is trying to say.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: Yes and no to your two questions.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite the prevailing notion here that it can't be registered, there is a registration number, registration date, and registrant name (Karl Ferris, who happens to have been the photographer for the cover shots). If it is unclear what the registration means, why are we still hosting the image? I thought we were meant to err on the side of caution? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Naval Mazu Statue of Befangao Jingan Temple 20130504.jpg

This photo("File:Naval Mazu Statue of Befangao Jingan Temple 20130504.jpg") shows a statue of Mazu, but I'm not sure if it should be submitted for deletion. Now to me that it looks like it is against "the FOP in Taiwan" policy. What do you think?--Kai3952 (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kai3952: a photograph is not a sculpture, so this OK for Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I know, but a statue of Mazu is a sculpture work. This is what I care about.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I see the discussion about this is still ongoing (Commons talk:Freedom of panorama), this was also discussed on Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/05#FoP-China attribution for photos uploaded by User:雲角 and, as I find out now, you already knew all this because of Commons:Deletion requests/File:楊梅伯公山公園入口.jpg. @Wcam and Jeff G.: I am confused. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I discussed several times about "the FOP in Taiwan", but still, it difficult to understand which photos are "no FOP".--Kai3952 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
To summarize my opinion in all these Taiwan-FOP related discussions, photos of 3D works (e.g. buildings, sculptures) are ok, while photos of 2D works (e.g. paintings, calligraphy) are not. --Wcam (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Here is a relevant article by Taiwanese copyright expert 章忠信 [14] (Google Translation link), which states that selling the photo of the rubber duck as postcards is not a copyright violation. --Wcam (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kai3952, Alexis Jazz, and Wcam: The government of Taiwan has chosen to give economic advantage to photographers of sculptures and buildings instead of to the sculptors and architects. I am done arguing about their position, I will support restoration of files I previously advocated to delete based on violation of the copyrights of Taiwanese sculptors and architects, and I think COM:FOP#Taiwan needs to be better explained. I am sorry for any inconvenience.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Wcam: Your explanation is too ambiguous. I still can't distinguish which one is "FOP" which one is "no FOP".--Kai3952 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kai3952: Sorry but I do not see where the ambiguity is. Could you be more specific as to which part you do not understand? --Wcam (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I need further discussion on which one is "FOP" which one is "no FOP". Can I ask on your talk page?--Kai3952 (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Image licensing for WiKi Loves Nature

How can I get CC by SA license for my image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T. Galib (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@T. Galib: assuming “my” means you made the image yourself, you would be giving a licence to others, based on rights you already have. On this site you would declare that you’re doing that by including a {{CC BY-SA 4.0}} or similar template on the file description page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

about copyright..

the images that i had upload is not a copyright i was the one who took it from the said venue and i had a original copy of it, and on top of it i myself is on the picture itself. so how come they perceive the uploaded picture to be a copyright. --Rhob Cantiga (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhob Cantiga: File:Trail through Bataan Tallest Cross.jpg is under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trail through Bataan Tallest Cross.jpg, which discussion has nothing to do with copyright.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am a freelancer working with Peerless Network, Inc. When I was creating their Wiki page, they authorized me to use their logo and information. When I am trying to upload the logo (through Upload Wizard), some autobot is deleting it. Their logo is available on public domain (website and Google). Please guide me resolve this issue. How do I go about uploading the logo on Peerless Network, Inc page without violating any guideline of Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safaque (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright markings for old photos from Finland

Hi, I am writing a tool to upload photos from Finna to Wikimedia Commons. It used directly the license markings from Finna, but I was told not to do that for the old photos, get a bot right and ask for opinions on the license issue in the better place (which is here I think)

Finna.fi is an online catalog and API for Finnish museums, libraries and archives and part of Finland's national digital library service. (more info)

However, it is unclear how to mark the licenses in Wikimedia Commons for the photos which are reproductions of out of copyright works. National recommendations (JHS 189) for open licensing in Finland is CC-BY and most of the open digital archives are following it for all their content. GLAMs in Finland also believe that they have right to use the CC-BY license for all photos.

This is legally fuzzy because are no court cases for this in Finland. Copyright council statement TN 2017:15 from last November says that the photographs of out of copyright photographs are copies and they don't get copyright protection and this will clear things. GLAMS, however, may have other ways to protect their collections like the database protection. WMFI is also doing the WLM with the Finnish National Board of Antiquities and we are using the old photos in WLM it would be nice to find some solution for this which would allow automatic uploads and doesn't include going to the court.

The most safe way would be to use CC-BY (per Precautionary principle) but if this is not possible, then are these license markings in files below ok or do you have other suggestions how to proceed?

--Zache (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

We have the {{PD-Scan}} and {{PD-Art}} tags for reproductions of out-of-copyright works, depending on if the reproduction was done by scanner or photograph. That generally explains that we allow uploads of such works, and tries to point a re-user to country-specific information about using such reproductions -- but in general we do not think there are any such protections, at least when using scans. Reproduction by photo may have "simple photo" protection in some EU countries, and more protection in the UK, depending on the details. If the reproduction/scan is licensed anyways even if there is such protection, we have the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} and {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}} templates, where you can specify the license for the reproduction (for use in countries which may allow for such copyrights), and the tags for the copyright of the underlying work (the latter one is for when the country of origin tag and the US tag differ). So for the four above works, a full tag may be {{Licensed-PD-Art-two|PD-Finland50|PD-1996|cc-by-4.0}} . Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
So it would be like this File:Puolustusvoimien_vuosipäivän_paraati_Senaatintorilla_-_N2279_(hkm.HKMS000005-0000004k).jpg ? --Zache (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that looks good. You can use other PD templates if they apply, of course -- if you know something was published (not just created) before 1923, then PD-1923 would be better than PD-1996 for the US side of things, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Related archived discussion in Commons:Kahvihuone (in Finnish, April 2018) --Zache (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/05&oldid=644652213"