Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/10

File:Abraham Tolentino (crop).jpg

The website from which this file was taken says ""All contents of this site are protected by Philippines copyright laws under Republic Act No. 8293, known as the Intellectual Property (IP) Code of the Philippines, and may not be reproduced, distributed, altered, published or broadcast for commercial use without prior permission from PNA and its mother unit, the News and Information Bureau (NIB)." So how can this have a PD-PhilippinesGov license here? --Gereon K. (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gereon K.: That statement on http://www.pna.gov.ph/about appears to be in conflict with Part IV, Chapter I, Section 171.11 and Part IV, Chapter IV, Section 176 of Republic Act No. 8293 and Republic Act No. 10372, as amended. The source page https://web.archive.org/web/20180223153228/http://www.pna.gov.ph/photos says "The Philippine News Agency is a web-based newswire service of the Philippine government".   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

STScI.edu and his subdomains

Hi all. Recently here (it.wiki) are debating about stsci.edu. Someone says all the material and images are licensed according to this page. (Ecception when request, i.e. authors or organizations citated, as wrote). But we have noted that the site has some subdomains:

• documents for publicc https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/ with at the bottom of all the pages there's the diciture Copyright © 2018 All Rights Reserved, so this would stand for the specified text in the page of copyright declarament
• The Technical documents, (https://jwst.stsci.edu/documentation/technical-documents) with good licenced (Unless otherwise specifically stated)
• The Blog (https://blogs.stsci.edu/universe/) with good licenced same over
• The Mikulski archive with good licenced same over
• The Main (https://jwst.stsci.edu/) with good licenced same over
• Others (Heritage, Archive etc... usually with same over

So: is the subdomain https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/ copyrighted ? Question is because : if copyrighted you must reformulate and you can't load images from there.

And: some templates (Template:PD-USGov-NASA, Template:PD-Hubble, Template:PD-NASA) and others here derivated, all include reference to stsi.edu in the form Materials from (site) may be copyrighted if they do not explicitly come from the STScI. This leads us to think that an image taken from stsci is regular according the copyright issue here. But an example, look at this image (there're several): How do you know if the image came from a subdomain regular as told over of from the jwst.stsci.edu, declared with Copyright © 2018 All Rights Reserved, ?? Thanks to all for interesting. I pinged some users i retain good for the argument/involved in previous discussions about this argument. (Revent, TheDragonFire, User:Clindberg)--☼ Windino ☼ (Rec) 15:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Newspaper using one of my pictures

Hi!, I want to ask what to do if a newspaper is using one of my picures (published here under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License) and there is not attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrivell (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's up to you. You could sue, but it's probably not going to be worth it. They'll probably offer attribution if you complain to them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Female copulatory vocalizations from Yui Hatano.ogg

If this is what I think it is, then it's probably not safe for work content. Can this can be kept as licensed without more information on the copyright status of the original audio sources used to create it? Assumning that this compilation is a COM:DW, it seems like the original audio tracks might still be under copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Almost certainly a Derivative Work of copyrighted content. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 07:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the file name, I suspect this was uploaded by aliens, who can't be expected to know anything about human copyright laws. clpo13_(talk) 16:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright of medieval paintings

As far as I know faithful photographies of pre-1923 2D art is permitted, but I still want to be sure: can I upload medieval paintings like these 1 (I would crop that one); 2; 3 without any problems? Are there no restrictions except of visible shadows? Thanks in advance LeGabrie (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Faithful reproductions of any public domain 2D art are permitted, not only pre-1923. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You can upload them, but please provide information about the location, the subjects depicted and the estimated date of creation, otherwise they are not of much value on Commons. Skimel (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Illustrations by Nobu Tamura

859 widely used images. Some of them are already nominated for deletion. The reason is as follows: All images on this site are copyrighted to Nobu Tamura under a Creative Commons 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license meaning that you are free to use them for non commercial purposes as long as you properly credit the author (© N. Tamura) (emphasize is mine). @NobuTamura, FunkMonk, Mariomassone, and ArthurWeasley~commonswiki: and anyone else who this may concern: any comments on the issue? Sealle (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

None of these should be deleted, as Tamura has uploaded most of them here himself (dual licenses are allowed). The account Arthur Weasley is just an alias. This is like the third time they are nominated for deletion, it is getting ridiculous. Perhaps we need to add a creator template to all his images that show his aliases, to keep overzealous admins from doing more damage. The fact that his images were constantly nominated for deletion is the reason he left Commons. Granted, his use of different names and different licences here and on his website creates confusion, but both is allowed, we just need to make it more transparent in the author fields of the images, to keep admins from getting confused. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I've closed new DRs as kept, previous ones can be found like this: [1] (Special:DeletedContributions/ArthurWeasley~commonswiki). Sealle (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, maybe more of those should be restored (though some of them were DRed by the artist for being inaccurate, which is probably fair). As for how to go on, I think we need a creator template like the one here[2], which should then be placed on all those images, so it is visible for everyone they are the same user. Someone just has to make it, though, and I have no experience with templates. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at what seems to be the DR[3] that started this, though (should probably have been linked here before), it seems the image in question was not uploaded by an alias of Tamura, but by Monsieur X, which means there was no dual licence involved here. As I didn't see the DR until now, I assumed the issue was that someone had DRed images uploaded by ArthurWeasley (Tamura alias), as has happened many times before. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Sealle and FunkMonk: I have requested undeletion of them at COM:UDR#Files of ArthurWeasley~commonswiki.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Checking those, it seems the author requested deletion for the images being inaccurate, which might be legitimate per Commons:Scope. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• For not repeating. Sealle (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

mosaic tshirt

file:Ahegao clothing.jpg (possibly NSFW) is an outfit which is patterned with a mosaic of copyrighted snippets from manga and anime, in a photo which is being used to demonstrate that people wear clothing covered in copyrighted snippets. As such, I'm not entirely certain that de minimis applies here. Thoughts? DS (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: I don't think DM applies.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

In the context of the photograph, I'd say that any particular snippet is de minimis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Photo from the Harvard Art Museum

Hello, is it possible to import this photo from the Harvard Art Museum? Thanks --Artafinde (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a photo of a 3D piece of art, no suggestion that it can be licensed here.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Options for uploading a faculty headshot

Hi, I'm working on a page for an academic at Ann Patricia Bowling, and I'm wondering if there's a way to upload her staff photo from university of Southampton. Can she herself upload the photo (would it be considered her own work)? Or could I upload it if I get her permission? Or does she need to get her university to release a copy of the photo under some sort of free license? Thanks. -Furicorn (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Furicorn: Please have the photographer or the head of the university send permission via OTRS with a copy to you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Collective work

I just started an essay on Commons:Collective work and corresponding template {{Collective work}}. The subject comes up now and then, so an essay seemed appropriate, if not a guideline. I think it is uncontroversial apart perhaps for the advice on small non-free images. Any comments welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A sample of images of post-1880 full newspaper pages with multiple articles and images found that almost all the pages had incorrect license tags. The most common was {{PD-old}}, which makes no sense on a 1945 newspaper front page. Did all the authors die in the next two or three years? Others included {{PD-anon-70}}, {{PD-art}}, {{PD-self}}, {{Self}} and even {{PD-text}}. The uploaders are either trying to game the system or, more likely, cannot find a license tag that fits. What we need, I think, are two templates:

• {{Collective work}} for use when we are not aware of any non-free content, but do not know all the authors and their death dates, so cannot be sure. Users are warned not to crop out an article or picture unless they are sure it is free.
• {{PD-collective-work}} for use when we are completely sure all the content is free.

The documentation of each template will point to the other. Again, any comments welcome. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't know the copyright on an image

Hi, I would like to put a picture of the canadian author Zoey Leigh Peterson in her wikipedia article, but I don't know if this image can be used like this or not. Is there a way for me to find out under what kind of copyright this image is ? --Alexndrine (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexndrine: No, unfortunately there is no explicit statement of permission there - just a link to download the photo - so that is not sufficient for Wikipedia/Commons. To use the image here, we need to have an explicit statement of a free content license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license under which our text contributions are published. If you would like to contact them to ask for such a statement of permission, please see en:WP:COPYREQ for information on asking for permission or en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for some sample letters. --B (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons photos reproduced on Flickr in breach of CC license conditions

I just discovered that one of my Commons photos File:Pica pica mauretanica1.jpg and many others from other contributors and CC sources (e.g. File:Maghreb (European) Magpie, Morocco.jpg) have been taken from Commons and reproduced by Flickr user anna pang with an "All rights reserved" claim, contrary to the obligations of Creative Commons licensing (cited examples here and here).

Does Commons take any coordinated enforcement action against misuse like this, or is it up to individual users to take any action?

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally only the copyright holder can take concrete action when someone is in violation of the terms of the license. Since Commons is not the copyright holder of any of the images here, Commons (or what would amount to Commons volunteers) do not, and can't really, do anything about it. There should be a way to report the images to Flickr. They should handle it and if they don't then further action can be taken up to and including a DMCA request. --Majora (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

And I found the link for you if you want to report the images. https://help.flickr.com/en_us/copyright-and-intellectual-property-policy-Hy9DcImP7 --Majora (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPF: you may should also request they be added to bad users list too - Commons:Questionable Flickr images.--BevinKacon (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: - could do, though not sure that is relevant here; it is the reverse (claiming CC pics as copyright) of the reason they are added to that list (claiming copyright pics are free to use, when they aren't) - MPF (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There would be no point in adding them to the bad user list as all that does is tell the flickr review bot to tag them as such for review. Since they are already tagged as ARR the bot would tag it for deletion. The bad user list is for flickrwashing in the other direction (ARR images listed as CC). --Majora (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPF: I put anna pang on the naughty list. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Canadian copyright will go from 50 to 70 years PMA

Dear Admins,

According to the reworked NAFTA agreement between Canada and the US, Canadian copyright moves from 50 yrs pma to 70 yrs pma. See this article and this CBC Article by an agency of the Government of Canada. So this common license tag will have to be reworked:

• {{PD-Canada}}

Point #3 has to be changed. It says: "3. the creator died more than 50 years ago" to '3. the creator died more than 70 years ago.'

Hopefully few images will be deleted since Canada has FOP. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be very premature until the relevant legislation is passed or regulations issued, so that we can determine such details as whether copyrights that expired less than 20 years ago will be revived. The template might need to switch (or have separate versions created) according to the year of death or publication.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The extensions may well not be retroactive, which would be a 20-year freeze on expirations without requiring anything to be deleted. No point in changing tags until the actual Canadian law is passed, and/or comes into force. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also we already require PD-US on everything, so this would only affect images that fall under a no-notice or not-renewed technicality in the US. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Usually the URAA is more likely to have protected something which did not have a notice/renewal on that score. (Though we will also be needing to rename PD-1923 soonish; that 20-year freeze is just about up). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-1978-89 question

Screenshot showing that the 1983 Bugle is the only one bearing a copyright registration

I'd like to get a second pair of eyes on this to make sure I'm right before I upload anything post-1976.

Virginia Tech has posted all of their yearbooks (called "The Bugle") at https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/11349/recent-submissions. They are faithful digital scans from cover to cover and none of them that I have seen had copyright notices until 1989 (ironically the first year they no longer needed them). So I did a copyright registration search and the only registration I could find was for the 1983 Bugle (see the right for a screenshot). So is this sufficient evidence for our purposes that, with the exception of the 1983 Bugle, all of the Bugles from 1988 and earlier are public domain (assuming I don't find one with a copyright notice)?

Thanks, --B (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be right. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

nicely done. most yearbooks are not registered or renewed. 78-89 was easier to file, but easier to now search copyright online. might want to link to screenshot in the permissions or reference field, to support the license, which may be scoffed at by certain admins. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Slowking4: Thanks, but unfortunately, Virginia Tech claims copyright on everything they put their hands on. The only things they acknowledge as PD are the yearbooks prior to 1923, even though none of the post-1923 ones ever complied with any formalities. So for the pre-1923 ones, I have said "This is a faithful scan of the original and the school has stated that this work is public domain and links to the CC Public Domain Mark 1.0 from the source website", but on the post-1923 ones, they (falsely) claim that they are copyrighted, even though it can be plainly seen that there was no notice and they never registered or renewed anything. --B (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Uganda Virus Research Institute, Zika Forest

Do any of the images in Category:Uganda Virus Research Institute and Category:Zika Forest need permission for the original works, especially File:Uganda Virus Research Institute visit on 2 March 2018 - the institute 01.jpg? We have OTRS permission from the photographer. I think FOP covers most. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thanks for checking on this. I am assisting with this upload.

One file to check is File:Coat of arms of Uganda.svg, which is original artwork based on a 1962 design in Uganda, and which appears in the photo you reference. The other part to check in the photo you linked is the text in this mission statement. Both the artwork and the mission statements are works of the central government of Uganda.

At Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Uganda it says "No copyright in public benefit works. There is no copyright in the following works (section 7): enactments, including Acts, statutes, decrees, statutory instruments and other laws made by the Legislature or other authorised bodies". This might have a limit, but I feel that the intent behind this statement is to make basic government statements and symbols free for the public to use. This covers the design of that art and also it should cover at least mission statements of government institutes like the Uganda Virus Research Institute.

Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the coat of arms or mission statement is covered by that since neither are enactments, so they would be copyright for 50 years from first publication. Also, it contains a photograph of the institute, which is probably copyright. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89: What about the image of the institute raises a copyright consideration? Uganda has Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Uganda as described at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Uganda. The coat of arms seems older than 50 years, so that design seems free.

I think the intent of these rules indicates a willingness to make government statements to the public free. It is a modern Internet media convention to claim copyright over few-word phrases and single sentences. We know that Uganda has sought to make free government announcements. Top level statements of what organizations do seem like the same sort of information delivered in the same way, only more brief.

Another part of the law says "reports made by committees or commissions of inquiry appointed by the Government or any agency of the Government" are free. The text of this poster seems like a report from a government agency stating what they do.

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I fixed your ping to @JJMC89.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

FOP indicates that a photograph of the building doesn't infringe on the architect's copyright, but the photograph of the building can still be copyright. A motto is not a report or anything else listed under 'No copyright in public benefit works'. Additionally, there is the copyright of the entire derivative work to consider. I've started a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uganda Virus Research Institute visit on 2 March 2018 - the institute 01.jpg. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

COM:SS sanity check

Regarding the nomination at en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tooth and Tail 2, it appears that the game developer has legitimately licensed the screen shot under a CCBYSA. But am I correct in thinking that...well...that doesn't actually matter for our purposes? The game itself does not appear to be freely licensed, and the screen shot is wholly derivative of the non-free software. That the entitiy owns both the "free" image and the non-free software, I don't think actually matters so long as they've only licensed the former, and not the latter freely.

Sanity check? Am I totally off base with that logic? GMG^talk 14:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: As the developer, they are certainly free to license a screenshot of their own work without licensing the entire game.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how that works though. How is it not derivative of a non-free work? I don't see what the mechanism would be to make it not-derivative. Per COM:SS screenshots must not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons unless all content in them is under a free license or in the public domain. And there doesn't seem to be any dispute that the game itself is non-free. GMG^talk 14:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: The dev makes free exactly and precisely what they want to make free in the act of publishing the screenshot, no more, no less. You are welcome to try and convince them to free the game, but in the meantime this is all they are willing to publish freely.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but could I then freely reuse the textures and models in the screen shot to make my own video game so long as I properly attribute it? Or is the creation of the textures and models contained in the copyright for the game and not the copyright for the screen shot? GMG^talk 14:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Yes, you could, subject to the terms of the license.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay...so...if I made a sculpture, and took a picture of it. If I licensed the picture under CCBYSA, someone else would be free, not just to reuse the picture, but to 3D print replicas of the sculpture and sell them? It's two different works: the picture and the sculpture, with two different copyrights. I can have a free sculpture with a non-free image. I don't understand why a free image would necessarily make the sculpture free.

I understand what you're saying, but I struggle to imagine any other situation where licensing a derivative work would change the licencing of the original copyrighted work. GMG^talk 15:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

A sculptor can license a picture of his/her work without licensing the original work. S/he is free to choose that a derivative of his/her work is free without the original to be free. Same principle for any work. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

But that doesn't at all jive with guidance at COM:DW, re: if the underlying work is still copyright protected, the original copyright holder must also license the underlying work for reuse. GMG^talk 15:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This is only true if the creator of the photograph or person who took the screenshot isn't the sculptor or game developer. Yes, you could try to extract the textures from the screenshot, assuming the game developer is the copyright holder for those textures. If a sculptor takes a photo of their sculpture and licenses that with CC BY-SA, you would be free to try and create a sculpture based on that photo. You would however not be allowed to base your sculpture on the actual sculpture or any other photos of it.

Commons talk:Derivative works#Underlying work - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter who took the picture. Sculpture is different in that only FoP lets non-copyright holders take photos and FoP denies us the right to make 3D copies. It complicates what a free license on a photo of a sculpture means. If you have the right to make a screenshot of a game and release it as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, anyone else has the right to make derivatives from that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think FoP always disallows 3D copies. Depends on the country. But it is true for many countries. But FoP doesn't come into play here, if I make a sculpture I am allowed to take a photo of that and publish the photo with a free license. Others will be allowed to make derivative works from the photo. I won't be forced to release the entire sculpture with a free license. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a thought experiment at this point, but imagine that you made a sculpture, not publicly displayed (so no FOP), and you uploaded a 3D highfalutin photographic scan of that sculpture, in whatever file format that would be in. Could I upload that scan under CCBYSA, but not release the sculpture similarly? That would give anyone the information they would need to make 3D printed replicas. But I did not release the sculpture under the same license. It seems intuitively that the scan would not be free, since it would be a derivative work of a non-free work.

I'm really not even arguing a position here; I'm just trying to understand, because my understanding is beating it's head against a wall in trying to figure out how this makes intuitive sense. GMG^talk 02:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think if the photo and the underlying work come from the same author, it can be assumed that the license for the photo licenses enough of the underlying work to allow use of the photo. It's when there are two different authors (or at least two different copyright owners) where there is a problem -- we need a license for both works, but one copyright owner cannot provide both. If it's a single copyright owner, likely not a problem. As for the thought experiment... if you make a 3-D work from photos of a 3-D work, it's probably not derivative of any of the photographs per se, but would be directly derivative of the original sculpture and likely a problem. The Berne Convention, when allowing countries to have FoP provisions, basically says any reproduction cannot prejudice the rights of the underlying author -- i.e. you really can't basically make a copy. Any claim of FoP would have to serve a different purpose than the original work, really. Secondly, the expression in a photograph is fundamentally different than the expression in a sculpture, so you aren't really copying that expression when you make a 3-D work from them -- you are just copying the original 3-D work, and using the photos as an aid. When it comes to things like textures, that is not fundamentally different -- technically, that may be licensed, perhaps unintentionally. They probably did not intend to allow competitors, and may try to fight it, but it's possible that it's licensed. You'd have to be really careful to not copy a scrap of the rest of their game though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel that Commons does not offer consistent or clear guidance on this. It is not just a Commons problems, and also this is a challenge with Creative Commons licenses and broader copyright discussion. Here are some similar examples which I and others raised in the past.

• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Request_for_example_-_traditional_copyright_on_3D_art.2C_CC_photo
• Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive_15#Request_for_example_-_traditional_copyright_on_3D_art,_CC_photo
• Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive_15#Can_a_sculptor_CC_license_a_photo_of_a_traditionally_copyrighted_artwork?
• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/07#Sculptor_wishes_to_donated_images_of_copyrighted_sculpture
• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/04#Photos_of_street_art_on_Commons

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean. COM:SS seems pretty unequivocal on the matter: Screenshots are derivative works and as such subject to the copyright of the displayed content, may it be a video, television program, or a computer program. Thus, screenshots must not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons unless all content in them is under a free license or in the public domain.

Continuing: if the copyright holder(s) (usually the programmers, software company, producer, or broadcaster) do not agree to publish the program under a free license, and they do not explicitly license the screenshot (or all screenshots) under a free license, the screenshot is not free.

So, if I can make a non-free game, but publish a free image from that game, that is derivative of the non-free work, but still free, since I own the copyright for both the free and the non-free work, then that "and" needs to be changed to an "or". If the "and" is really an "and" (i.e., both must be true) then images like the one I link to should be deleted. GMG^talk 17:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: That rule seems weak because it is a specialized case. A stronger rule would apply to any media and not just screenshots of software. The lack of a general rule is an indication to me that this is not completely thought out. I do not see a reason to differentiate photos of non-free sculpture from screenshots of non-free software when the copyright holder of the sculpture/software designates an image of either as free.

The matter is ambiguous but the practice is more certain - Commons seems to have a precedent established that when there is a path to find a free-license designation for an image depicting a piece of a multi-part copyrighted work, then Commons accepts that image while recognizing the work as a whole as non free. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

So we need to change that to an "or"? GMG^talk 21:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct.

The practice is that the copyright holder of a non-free work can apply a free license to a derivative work which includes elements but not all of the non-free work. The elements in that derivative work must be free. If the copyright holder (or the government in the case of FoP) says that the elements in the derivative work are free then we accept that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done It seems minor, but that tiny difference in wording actually makes a massive difference in what is and is not acceptable, at least for someone like me who is reading over the policy to check my intuition. GMG^talk 12:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I think the original use of "and" was correct (I think you were overlooking the double negation). The original wording was that a screenshot is not free if the program license is not free and the screenshot license is not free. If you change to "or" you should change the wording to say that a screenshot is free if the program license is free or the screenshot license is free. In particular, if you want to use "or" you should also remove the double negation from the sentence at COM:SS, i.e. change it to "if the copyright holder(s) (usually the programmers, software company, producer, or broadcaster) publish the program under a free license or they explicitly license the screenshot (or all screenshots) under a free license, the screenshot is free." —RP88 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Decision matrix for determining if a screen shot is appropriate for upload to Commons. If either condition is satisfied, that A) the software is freely licensed by the owner, or B) the screen shot is freely licensed by the owner, than the image is appropriate for Commons so long as it is within COM:SCOPE. If both conditions are not satisfied, then the image is non-free and not yet appropriate for upload to Commons.

Well now I've gotten myself turned around. What I mean to say RP88 is this (right). GMG^talk 14:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your matrix looks correct to me. —RP88 (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this explains more clearly? GMG^talk 14:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Your latest changes look good. Since you rephrased some sentences, the grouping became a little more confusing. I'm going to move the two sentences about the upper right corner of your of your decision matrix to their own paragraph. —RP88 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

By all means, please do. I'm as liable as anybody to forget in a year or two and have to look it up again myself. So anything that makes the standard more clear is beneficial. GMG^talk 14:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: there's a slight error in your matrix. If someone takes a screenshot, especially from a 3D game, the person taking the screenshot may also get partial copyright as they control the scene. For a screenshot of a menu or initial game state in which the person taking the screenshot has no control, this doesn't apply. I'm not reading it right but it could be clarified maybe. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm... But wouldn't that also be in quadrant IV? It would still be the case that 1) the software would need to be free, or 2) the screenshot would need to be freely licensed by the software owner, but there would be a third step of (after it's determined to be quadrants 1-3) any additional copyrights would need to be accounted for, such as that created by an original arrangement using a software. Same as any derivative work using a screenshot...same as if I added "original creativity" or "sweat-of-my brow" by cleverly photoshopping Jimbo's head onto all the video game characters.

I'm asking as much as anything. Obviously I'm not a copyright lawyer or I wouldn't have spent the last week trying to make the lot make sense. GMG^talk 17:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Also I changed the caption on COM:SS to clarify that I mean licensed by the software owner not the person who took the screen shot. GMG^talk 17:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/E-cig Twigg

Special:Diff/322613149 – are such a clauses allowed on Commons? Is this a valid reason to (speedy) delete files tagged this way? It seems that the sole purpose of this account and these photos is spamming (SEO), but perhaps I'm wrong… In other words, I'm looking for a good reason to nuke them. --jdx ^Re: 03:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jdx: specifying exactly how credit should be given for Creative Commons licenses is not allowed by the licenses themselves, but it is in line with what our templates say: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. That said, these credit lines are inadequate for CC BY-SA 4.0 (see §3(a)(1) of the license and [4]), which may put reusers at risk of having the license revoked if they don't add the appropriate information. I don't know if that's grounds for speedy deletion by itself, but the uploader should at least be made aware of it and encouraged to use something like {{Credit line}} instead. clpo13_(talk) 16:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

They can't specify an exact placement, but they can specify the exact wording, which is what I think they are doing there, which should be fine. That wording can be placed in the usual place you credit images -- on the web, that would be nearby. The above plus the license link should be all that is necessary for a re-user. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I notice that the request begins with “Please”, as opposed to, say, “You must”, so I wouldn’t read it as a restriction on the licence anyway, even if the BY provisions in CC licences didn’t provide for specifying the form of attribution (which they do, “in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor”).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I would take the credit request as being "in a reasonable manner requested by the Licensor", as permitted by the CC license, and use one of their two options. The CC guidance seems to make clear that "manner" means the textual content, not really the placement. However, you would need to credit it in the same place that your credits would normally go. I doubt the HTML portions would be necessary in a format which cannot handle HTML, but you would still need to provide the credit, which would probably mean the URL to their home page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Extra pair of eyes is needed

Hello, I have done an upload that goes a little bit outside of my normal area, and I am not 100% sure that I have done the licencing correctly. I would appreciate an extra pair of eyes, who knows maybe I did something wrong, potentially even uploaded a copyvio. Please take a look at File:Marine Grain Expedition to the Siberia in 1920 - Telegram about the support of the hydrographic work in the Yenisey mouth.jpeg, if something is wrong, please let me know or file a deletion request. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 18:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Who was the author of this document? Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The author is actually mentioned in the document, but I cannot make it out. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 04:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If you mean two people who signed it, they are not necessary the authors. It is better to treat this telegram as anonymous. Ruslik (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Keerthy Suresh at Mahanit Audio Launch.png

This youtube video source has no license given. Does that mean it is unfree? --Leoboudv (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it means unfree - this is the default in copyright. Ruslik (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Youtube uses "Youtube Standard License" by default, which is not free. When CC-BY licence is used you will see it listed under the category of the video at the bottom of the description. It is possible that the licence has changed. Unfortunately there are very few licence reviewers around, so this file probably will/should be deleted under COM:PRP. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 11:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv, Ruslik0, and Gone Postal: I tagged it as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I would actually prefer this to be a DR rather than Speedy because I would like to hear from the uploader. If the uploader can show something (however unlikely it is) that shows that the licence was in fact CC-BY, I would like an opportunity to consider it. I have checked some of the uploads of this user, and it doesn't appear to be somebody uploading copyvio en masse. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 14:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I must admit, that they had an opportunity to state their claim here. So I won't make an argument about it at this time. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 14:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for both your help here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Doubts about copyrights of a painting

Sometimes I see a picture of a painting of an artist who cannot be dead for 70 years. For instance paintings or drawings dated after 1950. So the file itself seems to be legal (updated by the photographer), but I have doubts about the subject. How/where can I express this? What should I do? JopkeB (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It depends, sometimes the work can be in public domain for whatever reason (done as a part of the job by the employee of the US federal government for example, yes, sometimes they do paint). If you are concerned you can file a deletion request, you will find the link titled "Nominate for deletion" press it when browsing the file and follow instructions. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 20:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

See also {{Dw no source since}} (and its counterpart {{Dw image source}} for user-talk pages), which may apply to such cases and is ‘speedier’ than a full DR. The Quick Delete Gadget automates their placement with a “DW no source” menu item on File pages.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

i would talk to the uploader. for american art exhibited before 1923, or not registered or renewed before 1978, DOD does not matter. so you could also get acquainted with https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Mp3 Files for our Wiki Loves Women radio program

Hi all,

Sometimes in 2017, We entered into partnership with a radio station in Nigeria to produced contents for Nigerian women- Wiki Loves Women.

A duly executed and signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was initiated between our group and the radio- See the link below.

After each of the episode, we do upload the output (Mp3 files) on commons. But we noticed that they were all deleted.

Kindly see link some of the deleted files ( We couldn't find the remaining files) below and the MOU

MP3 Files

• File:Episode Four wikiloveswomen featuring Adepeju Jaiyeoba.ogg
• File:Episode One wikiloveswomen featuring Hauwa Ojei.ogg
• File:Episode Two wikiloveswomen featuring Nneka Isaac Moses.ogg
• File:Episode Three wikiloveswomen featuring Betty Abah.ogg
• File:Episode Two featuring Nneka Isaac Moses on Wiki Loves Women Radio.ogg
• File:Episode One with Hauwa Ojeifo on Wiki Loves Women Radio 01.ogg

MOU

• File:WUGN_and_WFM91.7fm_MOU2.jpg
• File:WUGN_and_WFM91.7fm_MOU1.jpg
• File:WUGN_and_WFM_91.7_MOU.pdf

Thanks for your assistance --Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

They seem to have been deleted for lack of OTRS permission. Was the above documentation sent to the address at COM:OTRS ? That should get the files undeleted. Once the OTRS ticket number is known, use that with the appropriate template on future associated uploads. There can be a backlog with OTRS... unsure if this can be expedited, though it would be nice for a Wiki project. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I want to confirm that emails were sent to OTRS. Pinging Jcb who probably deleted most of these files. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

At least some were deleted by @JuTa: . A list of deletions of your files are at User:Faebot/SandboxO. --Fæ (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the deleted files did not mention a ticket number. @Olaniyan Olushola: Did you receive an autoreply from OTRS with a ticket number? Jcb (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The files were never touched by any OTRS volouteer. They normaly change the {{OTRS pending}} into {{PermissionOTRS}} when they confirm the validity of a release or into {{OTRS received}} when they start working on a case, but there are still some open questions or similar. After some months (exactly after the number of days in Commons:OTRS/backlog, which is the current age of the oldest not yet picked up OTRS case) files with {{OTRS pending}} automaticly get marked as {{No permission since}} and get deleted about one week later by an admin working on Category:Media missing permission. I would recommend to move this thread to Commons:OTRS noticeboard. regards.--JuTa 15:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

important for the community to notice that there is no closing the gap of OTRS and deleting admins, for good faith uploads. we should not have to ask months later "what happened to the files?"; there should be deletion tracking and accountability, and collaboration with good faith uploaders. or those uploaders may well go off-wiki to flickr, soundcloud, and youtube, reducing functionality. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

CC alterations

An image that I posted to Wikimedia Commons as Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 has been taken (uncredited) by a political candidate. They've placed their head over the panoramic image.

Sharealike says: "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

Does that mean this candidate has inadvertently released their headshot as Creative Commons? -- Nick Moreau (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

If there is no CC-BY-SA license provided it is a copyright infringement. If this candidate provided the image under CC-BY-SA the portrait is released under CC-BY-SA. --Hannolans (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Media form the Slovenian government

Is there something I'm missing on files like File:Zdravko Počivalšek-za splet.jpg from User:ModriDirkac. Is media from the Slovenian government free somehow and we've just not added it to our guidance at COM:CRT? GMG^talk 18:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. You are missing OTRS permission. I usually get unformal approval, then I upload pictures and then prepare OTRS statement with links on the donation for the authors. It usually happens within 48 hours from upload; this time it may require patience until Monday. Kind regards, --ModriDirkac (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey ModriDirkac. Thanks for clearing that up. You may want to tag these with {{OTRS pending}} when you upload them, so someone reviewing it will know that confirmation has been sent. GMG^talk 00:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea; this was usually done by someone else for me. I'll keep this in mind for next time. krgrds --ModriDirkac (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Photograph of subject of article

The subject of an article I'm creating, upon my request, sent an image to which she owns the copyright. How do I legally (licensing), responsibly (with Wikipedia/Wikimedia's blessing) upload and post it for use inside an infobox? It was 1:00 into this video that I realized this photo doesn't seem to meet the criteria presented: [[5]] As recommended, I have not attempted to upload it. Thank you. PaulThePony (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Paul

Hey PaulThePony. You can contact the subject, and have her follow the directions at COM:CONSENT in order to license the picture for free public use, meaning that it can be used on Wikipedia. But you need to be sure she actually owns the intellectual property, which usually means either she took the picture herself, or she contracted with a photographer, and part of their legal agreement was that she would own the copyright of the photos they took. GMG^talk 00:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GMG^talk! I know the latter is the case with the photo: she gained the copyright from the photographer. So the photo is 'hers'. But I'll direct her COM:CONSENT. Thanks again. PaulThePony (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Paul

International Bank of Azerbaijan

Can someone more experienced than me when it comes to derivative works take a look at File:IBA-bank-cards.jpg? While this set of images does appear to have been uploaded by an employee of the actual firm, I find it implausible that a financial institution genuinely intended to Flickr-wash their logo and promotional materials under CC BY-SA for anyone to reuse for any purpose, and in the case of File:IBA-bank-cards.jpg I very much doubt they could release material prominently featuring the Visa and MasterCard logos, even if they wanted to. (The uploader hasn't contributed to Commons for three years and has never contributed anything other than advertising for this bank, so I haven't attempted to discuss it with them first.) — iridescent 03:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I have no opinion on the merit of this specific case, but I find it plausible that a company may want to release its advertisement under the free licence in hopes that it will help it to disseminate (I do not, however, know how much it would help). The issue of Visa and MasterCard, however, is something I can comment on: They are trademarks rather than copyright limitations, if you look we even have Category:Mastercard and Category:Visa Inc.. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 05:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Nevz 8G-100 electric locomotives.jpg

Can this 2008 which was uploaded in 2008 be passed as a grandfathered file? Wikipedia's standards for permission was different 10 years ago compared to today and many older image files have been grandfathered. Or should it be deleted? The uploader left Commons in 2009 and I am surprised that the internet links still work. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Vlad, if he is the copyright owner, says "TIMES-D-SHAY! I AUTHORISE THE USE OF WIKIPEDIA FOR ALL MY PICTURES! BECAUSE I LOVE WIKIPEDIA! I USE IT ALL THE TIME! I am! VLADISLAV NIKITENKO" It is a 2008 permission and I think wikipedia was more flexible with permission then. The COM:OTRS system existed in 2006 but perhaps some leeway can be given to a single 10 year old photo. Any thoughts? --Leoboudv (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: In contrast this 2018 image would not be OK today.
• File:China Railways 8G Electric locomotives.jpg

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I am split on this. On one hand I really think that we need to assume good faith as much as humanly possible. On the other hand let's say some person uses the picture to make a T-Shirt (I have no idea why everybody is screaming about making t-shirts out of pictures on here, but ok, I will do that too), and Vladislav Nikitenko sues her and demands 1 billion dollars... wouldn't we be at least partially liable for distributing this file under a free licence that the author never specified? Even if he said "I let Wikipedia use it under CC licence" I would say we can probably keep, but there was no mention of the licence only the permission to use it in an article. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 20:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the lack of OTRS is a problem: this is a permission notice posted next to the image and that's fine. The problem is that the licence granted isn't the one we need (and it definitely isn't the CC BY-SA 3.0 that's claimed). It's only a licence for use on Wikipedia, and that's not good enough. Commons:Grandfathered old files relaxes the rules on how to get permission, but not on what permission we need. It looks like vlad_hunrider was active on LiveJournal in 2015, so maybe someone who speaks Russian could try getting in touch with him. --bjh21 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this stone arrangement sufficient to create its own copyright in Russia?

I am looking at File:Unnamed Road, Krasnodarskiy kray, Russia - panoramio (1).jpg and I believe that the arrangement of stones is not done for utilitarian reason, but as an act of self expression. In a sense it can be akin to a sand castle. I believe that it constitutes something that is copyrightable and copyrighted. But I do not want to nominate for deletion right away, since sometimes files are deleted not because there is a consensus, but simply because nobody bothered to look at the file the second time to object. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 20:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

From COM:FOP#Russia I guess this hinges on whether it’s a sculpture (not OK) or a landscape design (OK). I agree it doesn’t seem utilitarian; if it were a cache- or trail-marker I’d expect the stone-piles or cairns to be larger and more stable-looking.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

There is another aspect. Such stone arrangements are often not made by a specific individual, but rather people make them as a tradition of sorts. It is not a form of expression of the specific individual, but is much closer to a folk art of the specific place, and folklore is an exception in Russian copyright. However, I believe that the most likely way a court could rule on that would be that the generic expression of arranging stones is folklore, but the specific arrangement is the work of an individual. In other words if I were to arrange stones to represent something, I could not be sued for lifting a previous stone arranger's style just because I also have arranged stones. However, let us leave that out for a second and concentrate on Sculpture vs Garden design. I have found the article on landscape design in the Large Soviet Encyclopaedia. I know that it is not a legal document, but it is notable enough to argue that the law-makers must have been aware of it when drafting the law and using the concept «landscape design». I would like to draw attention to the part that shows ««Английский сад» парка в Пушкине близ Ленинграда. 1771—80. Горка из «дикого камня».» (translation: ««English Garden» in Pushking park near Leningrad. 1771-80. Mountain from «wild stone».») Here we definitely have a difference in size, but I believe that the size is not the main issue here, but rather the fact that the stone arrangement is made from the stone found in nature rather than stone being given specific form according to the personal expression. On that ground I believe that this is an element of landscape design. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 01:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Cabo Rojo Lighthouse image

The image located at the following URL is incorrectly identified as being a photo taken by a government official and therefore copyright free. This is a photo I captured in 2005 and shared with the Coast Guard to use on their lighthouse page. However, I still own the photo and have not given any permissions beyond that for it's use.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cabo_Rojo_lighthouse.jpg

Luis Lebron. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.178.168.32 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You should follow instructions on Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS? (last item). Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinion please - 1867 photo

The Wisconsin Historical Society is claiming ownership of this photo of Kate Newell Doggett in the Rights and Permissions section of the page. I think it is a generic claim that shows up on all items in their collection. I think that a photograph taken in the United States in 1867 is in public domain in 2018. I will upload the photo to the commons if I can get an "expert" to agree with me. I would be inclined to use the PD-1923 tag. Thanks in advance. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

{{PD-1923}} is only applicable for works published before 1923. For unpublished works {{PD-old-70}} should be used. Or if it was published from 1 March 1989 through 2002 the copyright will last until 2047. See Commons:Hirtle_chart. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ruslik0! PD-old-70 it is. Best WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Long-term licensing (licenses of deceased authors that will enter the public domain)

I often photograph subjects which have some overlap with another contributor, he used to be a very active contributor to Wikimedia Commons until he one day died ☠, this contributor’s images are still on Wikimedia Commons and could be accessed today by those who wish to use his images educationally. His death is a known and recorded fact on Wikimedia Commons and we know when he died (on December 30th, 2011 and his final contributions to Wikimedia Commons were on December 29th, 2011), but if I would take one of his images like File:Henk Ridder Thesinge 01.jpg you would find that it has no mention of his death, this isn't a bad thing as we don’t want to be constantly reminded of the death of a colleague, sure. However 70 (seventy) years after his demise his works will be in the public domain, let’s assume that Wikimedia Commons is then still around, will there be a bot then that will tag of of his work and replace the license with a public domain one?

We're “lucky” to know when he died, Flickr photographers or a lot of other contributors who don’t let their loved ones inform us when they die 💀 will mean that some works will be in the public domain but we have no idea when. Is there a way that we can solve this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate for a bot to replace existing licences with PD statements, since the existing licences will be useful (e.g.) in countries with non-standard copyright expiry terms. Adding a PD statement would of course be fine. Obviously where we never find out about someone's death, we can't do anything about it, but I don't think this is a serious problem: using works in accordance with the licence will still be OK. --bjh21 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "standard" copyright expiry terms. So long as huge nations like China stick with life+50, and India sticks with life+60, there will be no one term most people in the world are subject to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You're quite right. I apologise for not thinking broadly enough. --bjh21 (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we need to develop some sort of approach for: 1) Record the known death of a contributor in order to assertain when their work enters public domain, 2) Applying public domain tag when it comes to an image that is licenced freely. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:50th Anniversary of UAZ (3116916489).jpg for the case similar to number 2 (although not due to death). ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

For (1), I think we already have half an approach: people with Wikidata items or Creator pages have their dates of death recorded there. Other deceased Commons users have their dates of death recorded on their user page or user talk page. There is a question about what to do about non-notable Flickr users and suchlike. If they have more than a few works on Commons, I think those should be collected into a category so that information about the author (including their date of death) can go in the category description. See Category:Photographs by Ben Brooksbank for an example. I'm not sure what to do about authors who don't merit a category. We could put the date of death in the "Author" field of {{Information}}, I suppose. --bjh21 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I think all authors should have a category, at least when we have precise information. The category can be hidden if it is not essential. With Structured Data, this will be recorded anyhow (but it is not clear yet where).

But we have to think broader about updating this kind of licensing information. Authors' works who died in 1918 are now with PD-old-70, but next year this should be updated to PD-old-100. This should be done every January, but I am not aware that this was done for authors who died between 1905 and 1917. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think structured data will give any way to store data about Flickr users. All you'll get will be a link to their Flickr page. --ghouston (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ghouston: And why not? We still need to record the author's name, at least to comply with a CC or attribution license, or moral rights. If you check discussions about Structured Data, you will see that there is a provision for storing that information, although it is not clear where. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's one place the data could be stored: in an item for the author on Wikidata. However, random Flickr users are unlikely to meet Wikidata's notability policy. There's no provision in structured data for having data items on Commons itself. The author field (as I last saw it specified) will consist of text for the attribution and a link to the external site (Flickr user page). --ghouston (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarity of "15 October 2018" toward GFDL-only content

The Commons:Licensing was updated to no longer accept GFDL-only content uploaded/licensed "on or after 15 October 2018". However, I'm unsure which time zone we must go by. Is it UTC or a local time zone? For example, File:StJamesEpiscopalChurchMarshallMN.jpg was uploaded on that date but goes by the UTC zone; locally, the date would be 14 October at the same time. Is the rule violated by uploading it on the UTC time zone? --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment Are you serious? Everybody jumped at me and at everybody else who defended the right to upload under all the free licences, and you are trying to start an argument over whether or not somebody uploading on 14^th of October has technically uploaded after 15^th of October. I would understand if we were talking about somebody uploading a file to their server 2 days ago and in a month copying it to Commons, we could say that there is little evidence that it was first published under the free licence before the 15^th and there would be some controversy… but there is no controversy here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Jonathunder: I hope you are aware of this discussion. And, although I am not the one who has started it, I wish to apologise to you. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Gone Postal: Thank you for letting me know about this. I never saw the original discussion until after it happened. @George Ho: , since you called out one of my photos, you might have notified me. It would be expected on the English Wikipedia, but I realize things are different here. I have had problems accessing my photos until today, but I got some work done on this computer to make sure I could upload my backlog today, 14 October 2018. If you are determined to get them deleted because they don't meet the deadline in your part of the world but they do in mine, does that help the projects and readers we serve? These will likely be the last photos I upload here. A poorly advertised discussion decided the license I prefer, while free as in speech and free as in beer, is no longer welcome here because it's not free enough. So be it; do as thou wilt. Jonathunder (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• We always use UTC on Commons, so you are gaming the system by uploading a lot of images on October 15th, but still 14th in your area. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Jonathunder, having it deleted is the last thing I want to do to the images you uploaded. Can you do compromises, like shrinking some of you images to lower resolution to conform to a more acceptable license, like CC-BY-SA or {{FAL}}? George Ho (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• The choice of highly obstructive "GFDL-1.2 only" combined with the message "Please review and respect the license. If you wish to use it outside Wikimedia projects and the terms do not meet your needs, you may email the copyright holder to negotiate special arrangements." is very much why we decided to ban this licence choice. Threats to leave don't impress me much -- there are countless photographers who would contribute if we permitted "-NC" licences. We're a free-content image repository for everyone, not just Wikipedia. George Ho, shrinking the images is no help -- WMF legal have already explained that an simple resize does not create a new work-of-copyright -- after all, the MediaWiki thumbnailer does it all the time. For what it's worth, I support UTC as the deadline. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Colin or Yann, if either of you wish to take some of his images to DR, then please feel free. BTW, I don't know which discussion or statement the WMF legal provided. Can you give me a link please? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• CC FAQ has a brief remark. I'd have to search the VP for the WMF legal discussion. -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am sitting on the edge of my sit, after all tomorrow, after 15^th of October we are going to have thousands of t-shirts starting to be printed from the free images found on Commons. After all apparently the existence of GFDL on this site is what kept them from doing it all of this time. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• GP you've made your point that you are unhappy about this, and now you are just trolling. George asked a fair question, and people get upset when their photos are deleted on some policy/legal matter all the time. -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I will attempt to not comment on this thread unless I have a constructive proposal. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting question. I didn't quite expect anyone to upload dozens of photos right on or over the deadline. I'm going to give this some thought. Edit: I have and will share my thoughts later today once I've written them down. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Just leave them. If we're not going to delete any of the old images, a few new ones won't hurt, so there's no reason not to let a few images arguably within the deadline go, in order to help smooth over ruffled feathers on a controversial decision.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Alright.

The goal of the proposal was to stop new uploads of content types not suitable for GFDL licensing with only a GFDL license. Part of that proposal was a grace period of one month. This was needed to inform the community, change templates, provide time for bots to be updated, etc. I was well aware some people might use the grace period to mass upload/license content from their archives with only a GFDL license. Obviously the grace period wasn't provided with that purpose in mind, but this was allowed. In the long run, it hardly matters. All existing files were grandfathered, so a few hundred more uploads during the grace period doesn't make that much of a difference. What matters is that the switch has been made.

Now for this particular case. I have indeed failed to specify a time zone. In Dutch law (possibly other countries as well), when a contract is ambiguous, it needs to be interpreted the way that is most beneficial for the party who signed it. While this isn't a contract and Dutch law doesn't apply, this doesn't seem unreasonable. Which would mean that in this case we follow the time zone of the uploader. But had the uploader been from Japan, UTC (which is the time zone most commonly used on Commons) would have been followed. Also keep in mind the proposal was never limited to Commons. While Commons generally uses UTC, the uploader could have also uploaded the photos to English Wikipedia, where one may have their local time zone configured. Or they could have uploaded to another place not related to Wikimedia at all with any time zone. That content would still be allowed to be transferred to Commons, assuming it can be reasonably proven to have been licensed before 15 October.

@Jonathunder: "A poorly advertised discussion decided the license I prefer, while free as in speech and free as in beer, is no longer welcome here because it's not free enough."

First, on Commons w:WP:CANVAS is followed rather strictly. I don't always agree with that, but it's a choice. So we advertise nothing. I also know someone who would have almost certainly voted in favor of the proposal. I never told them about it and they didn't cast any vote.

Second, it's not so much that GFDL isn't "free enough", it was simply never designed (or suitable) for photos. You are still allowed to use GFDL as an additional license. You may want to have a look at a template for informing re-users that I overhauled some time ago: {{Not public domain}}. I hope you won't stop contributing media completely, but if you do I respect that choice. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Flowchart copyright

Jmabel did a mess and took a conversation that the main issue was copyright from a talk page and included in Help Desk...

Moved from Commons:Help desk#Help: How to add a flowchart from an article

---

Hi everyone, I have a question regarding adding a flowchart to a wiki page form an article. The flowchart is an illustration of a theoretical model and I'm not able to contact the theorists for the copyright. So...wiki said that you can't "create a picture that is created and inspired by others", which means any change to the flowchart is "inspired" from the original one (and I don't want to make changes to the flowchart in the first place). Is there anything I can do to upload the original flowchart and cite it appropriately?Yvette72 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

END: question moved from talk page - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yvette72: : I've moved your question here from the talk page; presumably this is where you meant to post it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Jmabel this should be here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

Yvette72 how complex is this flowchart? Normally they are free, as they are {{Pd-shape}}, that means that the shape is not eligible for copyright, but may be the text is. Do you have a link to the flowchart be evaluated by the community?

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 03:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The flowchart is complex (on page 126). I think it is copyrighted. I find that someone on the ELM page has upload one version of it to the wiki as his own work. S/he didn't change the text but re-create the flowchart ( which made it not accurate and clear). My intention is to upload the original copy created by the theorists in their article and cite them. Or, to change it as little as possible. Thanks for the helpYvette72 (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

And added at least one misspelling.

Yes, that looks like a copyright violation to me. You can feel free to nominate it for deletion.

As for citing the original: you can't upload a copy to Commons, but you can cite it like any other document. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course, it would be welcome here if you can successfully go the COM:OTRS route and actually obtain a free license for it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

For me the chart uploaded here (File:Elm-diagram.jpg) is different enough to be considered another media.

Using the same principal that we use at Wikipedia, rely on a source, but write it with other words, normally simpler.

Yvette72, if you are unable re-write it, I do not recommend you upload a version of it, and at the limit, you will be creating just a modify version of the chart, also a copyright infringement. Only attributing the author means that the license is a free license, that what we Wikimedia work with, the author however, published it under a all rights reserved license, so to use it you will need a formal authorization to reproduce, another authorization to modify, another to distribute, or, and to use here, change the license to a free one.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 18:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Russian copyright law in Crimea?

Not {{FoP-Russia}} like previous discussions, but rather {{PD-RU-trivial-securitycam}} for File:Стрелок в Керченском политехническом колледже.jpg, which is displayed in w:en:Kerch Polytechnic College attack. Jnestorius (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous photographer for File:Ruisbroekstraat 1887.png

For this 1887 photograph taken in Brussels, the author is anonymous. I have added {{PD-EU-Anonymous}} and this was later reverted to the generic {{PD-old-assumed}} without explanation.

Any opinions on which template is the more precise and accurate one for this old photograph, or perhaps someone can suggest an even better template to use? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence or indication presented at all that the author would not have disclosed their identity, so that PD-EU-Anonymous is obviously invalid. This is exactly the kind of situations we have PD-old-assumed for. Please stop your personal vendetta against this license. Jcb (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright law in Belgium does not require the proof of a negative, only reasonable research. I have no personal vendetta as I am not an comedy Italian mobster, nor am I interested in hounding others. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Even reasonable research is completely missing here. Reasonable research is not spending 5 minutes in a google search. Jcb (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that is a personal opinion, not based on copyright law in Belgium or case law. There is no time limit for being legally credited as the photographer, however to claim the ownership there is a limitation of 30 years. For this case the uploader has sourced to a Belgian book illustrator company, the fact that there is no known author to credit is clear enough by examining that source.

As @Clindberg: says above for unknown German photographers, "As with anything, if more information becomes available, we can nominate for deletion then." Which is a perfectly fine implementation of the policy for handling significant doubt.

If you are aware of part of the copyright act or specific legislation that advanced our knowledge here, please link to them. --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If we have some reason to believe that the photo was published anonymously or pseudonymously, then a more specific licence seems to be correct. However, I have no opinion if this is the case here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Where was this originally published? It has a date of creation, but that seems to be all we know given the source. I don't see a further source credited there, though I may be missing it, or it could be in another PDF. That further source should be mentioned here, if it exists. Without that, not sure we can claim anonymous -- an author's name getting lost in later publications or showing up on the Internet without an author does not make it anonymous. PD-old-assumed can probably be used, but without more source information (which I may simply be missing) I don't think I would put an anonymous tag on it. The UK uses an "unknown" definition, which is a bit looser, but that does not apply to the rest of the EU usually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

We know almost nothing, only the claim of date by Exhibitions International. If we take the most conservative hypothetical view, there is no evidence of publication before Exhibitions International put a copy on the internet and there may be a new publication right under that part of EU law. Other copies found via Google Image search appear to be cropped and overexposed. Whether those are from a different print, I have been unable to work out.

To be honest, this is a rationale for a deletion request if those (all hypothetical) doubts are taken seriously as {{PD-old-assumed}} is just a "we don't know anything for certain" fudge. --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to doubt the date, but I'd change the author to "Unknown" rather than "Anonymous" and leave the PD-old-assumed tag. "Anonymous" should at least mean that we know it was originally published anonymously. If this is the first publication, I guess it would be anonymous, but they had to obtain the photo from somewhere. It is of course somewhat complicated since the term in Germany expired a long time ago (whether published or not) and was only possibly revived in 1995. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Unknown photographer for File:Carl Benedict Mesterton black and white photo.jpg

The photographer for this photograph taken in Sweden is not known. It is a standard style of working portrait that would have been used for official purposes and was taken from Uplands nation 1800-1914 (published 1915), the author of that work dying in 1918.

Myself @Nemo bis: and @Jcb: have swapped the license between the generic {{PD-old-assumed}} and the EU specific {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. An even more specific option might be to apply {{PD-Sweden-photo}}.

As the choice of license is under dispute, independent opinions to reach a consensus on the best possible license for reusers would be welcome. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree with PD-Sweden-photo for this one. PD-anon-70-EU was however an obvious mistake, because there was not presented any evidence that the author would not have disclosed their identity. Jcb (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright law for unknown photographers does not require impossible negatives to be proven. Giving some time for viewpoints from other contributors would help here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If it was published anonymously, and no author can be found with an Internet search, then PD-anon-70-EU should also be fine. The way you disprove PD-anon-70-EU is to show the author name (disclosed before 1986 in this case). Jcb's definition of what qualifies for PD-anon-70-EU basically makes it an unusable tag, since you can't prove a negative. I tend to agree we should at least know the initial publication was anonymous (usually the most likely place for an author to be named), but after that to remove the tag you should have to identify the author. That does happen sometimes, but the odds are extremely low, not enough for a significant doubt to me. The photo is too new for PD-old-assumed though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Why too new for PD-old-assumed? The depicted person died in 1889, which is 129 years ago. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, was assuming 1915, sorry. Missed it was created much earlier. Yeah, that's probably early enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright for File:GEC_Plug_and_Socket,_1893.jpg

w:en:File:GEC_Plug_and_Socket,_1893.jpg same file was recently uploaded as File:قابس_ومقبس.jpg I would like more comments from others on the validity of the license of commons version. one of these may be eventually deleted. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey DBigXray. If the information is correct, and it was first published in the US prior to 1923, then it would be in the public domain. The version on en.wiki can be deleted en:WP:F8, and categories as well as an English language description should be added to the file on Commons so that it may be more easily located and used. GMG^talk 19:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: except CC0 is bullshit and the picture appeared in a British catalog. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Good on you Alexis Jazz. I must have been looking at the en.wiki image license. Yes, CC0 is clearly bunk, and the image should be public domain, regardless of whether it was published in the US or the UK. I'm not sure how we're determining that it was a British publication, I just knew that GE was a US company. GMG^talk 21:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

General Electric (Q54173) and General Electric Company plc (Q1208203) are different companies in different countries. "GEC" here appears to refer to the latter. --bjh21 (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Decades ago I worked for part of GEC. The catalogue would have been a UK publication. GEC had offices around the world, but they were tiny compared to the core companies in the UK. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I should get answers wrong more often, I'd learn a great deal more. :P GMG^talk 12:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have CSD F8ed the wiki version now. Thanks everyone for sharing your comments and making the necessary changes in the license. I am glad that I posted it here for more comments. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please explain the logic of preferring a duplicate file with a foreign name, in a foreign alphabet, to the original with an appropriately descriptive English name? As has been pointed out above, this is an image of a British product taken from a British catalogue of 1893! It is used in articles written in British English. FF-UK (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: this image only existed on English Wikipedia. When arwiki needed it, they uploaded it to Commons. With a filename in Arabic.. Because.. that's the language they speak. I'm not sure policy allows us to change it. But I agree it makes no sense. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: , Fæ, Alexis Jazz As far as I understand from the discussion above, the question of License has been settled as PD which is good, let me know if I am mistaken in making this conclusion.

Now Alexis Jazz To clarify your doubt on whether policy allows to change the File name ? The answer is NO, please refer Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_not_be_renamed?#2. Basically File name is no big deal because no reader is going to see or read the FILENAME, they will only see the file. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: no, it hasn't been settled. Fae changed the license to {{PD-UK-unknown}} which is, frankly, bullshit. I should revert Fae, the thing is, Fae is on a crusade to kill {{PD-old-assumed}} and all of its use. So if I revert Fae, which I should do, this will be punished by Fae starting a DR. Which gives us a dilemma: keep the file with the wrong license, or potentially have it deleted because you never know what'll happen if it goes to DR?

Did I mention the template war is stupid? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please be civil. There is no template war. There is no excuse for forum shopping on this noticeboard, or to swear at other contributors.

The drawing is from GEC's catalogue, making it beyond reasonable doubt that the draftsperson was a GEC employee under a UK contract transferring works like this automatically to GEC. As it happens exactly the type of terms that I was employed under when I worked for GEC Marconi. In Commons' policies what matters is choosing the most beneficial license that is based on the current facts about the file that are beyond significant doubt. PD-UK-unknown is more accurate and precise than PD-old-assumed for this file, with the benefit that there is no need for reusers to worry about assumptions about age that make the work legally dubious. --Fæ (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh quit it. You are on a crusade. But hey, keep saying you're not! SOMEBODY will believe you eventually!

"This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was."

I'm not a big fan of any of the anonymous/unknown templates because it's not clear what anonymous/unknown even means. We may need another template for UK corporate copyright, but it's not entirely clear to me yet how that works. I'd have to read the laws, but PD-UK-unknown is bullshit. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion, read the UK copyright act, look through variations for other countries that interest you, and at least surf through a library book on UK IP law, before getting on a soapbox and shouting down everyone else because your views so important and are definitely not time-wasting trolling. I have at least had the good courtesy to read a book and learn from past cases, especially those where I misunderstood what was legal reality and what was hypothetical fantasy. --Fæ (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion, stop your meddling with PD-old-assumed and shouting down everyone else because your views are so important and definitely not time-wasting trolling. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Fæ, Alexis Jazz Sorry to interrupt this PD Subclassification debate. May I know why this difference of opinion in the subclassification affects this particular file File:قابس_ومقبس.jpg on commons about its usage on en.wiki ? As I see it this pic published in 1893, and classified as PD-X should not have any problem to be used at en.wiki. unless there is something that I am not aware of. Appreciate your kind response on this. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: File:قابس_ومقبس.jpg is not PD-UK-unknown. PD-old-assumed would fit, but we can't put it on the file because Fae will nominate it for deletion if we do that. We can't put any (for Commons) valid copyright tag for the UK on this file. So you better keep it local on enwiki. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. If there was no author name / engraver mentioned on the catalog, it is precisely PD-UK-unknown. There is no separate tag for corporate copyright -- they get the same terms as everyone else. Why would that be incorrect? See the UK copyright flowchart. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: we don't know what was in the catalog. And even assuming no name was mentioned: when exactly is something PD-UK-unknown? Afaik there is no description of that on Commons. You could always contact GEC or whoever put the catalog together. Or we could publicly ask on Facebook. What is a "reasonable enquiry"? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

PD-UK-unknown is a long-standing tag here, based squarely on UK copyright law. The UK used "unknown" rather than "anonymous" before the EU directive, and kept that wording.

(3)If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires—

(a)at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or

(b)if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,subject as follows.

(4)Subsection (2)[70pma] applies if the identity of the author becomes known before the end of the period specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3).

In general, if a term is not specifically defined in a law, then it's the common sense meaning. We don't just ignore parts of law because there is more uncertainty then we would like -- make the best effort. They do define unknown -- For the purposes of this Part the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry; but if his identity is once known it shall not subsequently be regarded as unknown. If "reasonable inquiry" is not defined, then it is a common sense meaning. Template talk:PD-UK-unknown has some further discussion and links -- MichaelMaggs seemed to have a pretty deep knowledge of UK copyright and he created that tag long ago. It is absolutely part of their law, and "unknown" is not as stringent as the usual EU "anonymous". Secondly, for something published in 1893, the author had to be known before 1964. I'm not sure that making them known now would change anything. If you can find court cases which aid in the understanding, by all means bring them up, but those tags have been here for years. There is no reason to suddenly call them "bullshit". There is more basis for that than PD-old-assumed, frankly, though that tag could easily also apply here in addition to PD-UK-unknown.

Now, if we don't have a reference to the original catalog, such that we don't know if the author was named, that could be more of an issue. I would imagine most of the time the authors were not named, but it's good to know more for sure. I see we have File:1893 GEC Lampholder Plug.jpg which is supposedly from the same catalog, which the uploader claims to have owned, and found no name but the company owner (which was used as a death date). I see a couple pages from the catalog here, but not the full thing with possible credits. So, not as sure there, but there was someone who claimed to have the catalog in the past and found no engraver names. I'm not sure it's worth arguing more about -- I'd probably be inclined to leave both tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: that's interesting. But what is "the common sense meaning"?

• "It doesn't say on the very picture, no watermark, no metadata, therefore unknown"
• "It didn't say in the catalog, therefore, unknown"
• "It doesn't say on Ericsson's website, therefore, unknown"
• "I asked Ericsson by mail. Never heard back. Therefore, unknown"
• "I called Ericsson, the lady who picked up the phone refused to continue the conversation if I didn't provide my VAT-number. I don't have any, therefore, unknown"
• "I contacted children of former employees of GEC. I spoke to about a dozen of them. In the end, I didn't get a clear answer, therefore, unknown"
• "Google didn't know. Therefore, unknown"

Another thing that worries me: "applies if the identity of the author becomes known before the end of the period specified in paragraph (a) or (b)". The author only had to be known somewhere between 1893 and 1963. What if the illustrator gave an interview to a local newspaper, which doesn't seem that far-fetched? Or widely advertised their skills saying "I did illustrations for GEC you know, so hire me!" (also doesn't seem that implausible). Just because we have forgotten about this now, does it suddenly become PD-UK-unknown? (I don't know, it's just not clear to me) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: For old works like that, you'd have to find evidence that the author became known before 1964. Asking the publisher now would not change anything. If you find such evidence, great, then it was not "unknown" and nominate it for deletion if the death date cannot be established or is less than 70 years ago. There is always uncertainty with uploads; theoretical stuff like "he mentioned it to a local newspaper" is way below COM:PRP (which are for sigifnicant doubts). If you can find the author name with Internet research, then it's not anonymous/unknown (even if the death dates are not known). If you can't, just leave it with that tag until someone does. As for the other above questions, just finding something on the Internet is not enough. If you have the catalog and the author is not mentioned, then yes, that is anonymous and unknown -- that means it at least started life as unknown, which is usually the most critical part, as the vast majority of such works never became known. If the author was ever known though, then no, they cannot become unknown again. You can play the theoretical games all day long if you want -- for any work, how you do you know it was not first published in Spain or Columbia in a local newspaper, make it 80pma? Or if a US court would rule any given work was technically unpublished until 1995, making it under U.S. copyright until 2049 ? Those are not significant doubts, much like the concern about possibly being known based on a local newspaper. To me the crucial part is knowing that it at least started out life as anonymous; at that point the odds swing overwhelmingly in favor of it actually still being anonymous, at which point we should need to actually find the author in order to change the tag. Just finding a picture on the Internet with no idea of where it came from should not be enough, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes it a bit more clear. I don't mean to play games, it's just not quite clear (now a bit more clear) to me what "unknown" means. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It's public domain. The discussion is a technical matter of Commons policies and templates. You can safely ignore the soapboxing and bad language. --Fæ (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You can safely ignore Fae. The file may be public domain, but Commons doesn't have a suitable copyright tag for it right now other than PD-old-assumed, which Fae is having a war against. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Unknown German authors

Can someone explain in plain language what the law actually states about the expiry of copyright in works where an (apparent) German author is unknown and unknowable (i.e. the only existing publications that can be found by research do not name any author or a pseudonym)?

Current templates like {{PD-anon-70-EU}} point to de:Anonymes_Werk_(Urheberrecht). In that Wikipedia article it does not appear to say anywhere that Germany is an exception to the normal anon 70 EU rule where the author is unknown, or the work has not been published as anonymous (i.e. attribution of "anonymous" or equivalent with the publisher knowing or having known who the author was). My reading via translation of the section in "Rechtslage in Deutschland", is that German copyright law actually states that copyright expires 70 years after publication in these circumstances.

The problem I have is that my use of PD-EU-anon-70 for published old works with no published author or anonymity statement is invariably getting reverted for German works, yet this seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the law based on what I have read. When challenged, those reverting tell me to read exactly what I have read, so I'm none the wiser. --Fæ (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the idea was that there was no separate anonymous term for artistic works in older German law, so they were 70pma, and the new EU laws (which are 70 years from publication for anonymous works) did not shorten them. I don't recall anyone mentioning a court case which ruled that way, but it's possible. The EU directive did not shorten any terms which were "already running" as of July 1995. I'm not sure what "already running" means in terms of an author who is unknowable and a term based on their unknowable death, and I'm not sure it is definite there is a problem, but there may be enough doubt. However, for snapshot-type photos (Lichtbilder), the earlier German terms were shorter (25 years from publication, and later 50 years from publication for photos documenting news events and that sort of thing) whether anonymous or not. So, anonymous snapshots should safely be 70 years from publication now (still subject to the URAA of course, so pre-1926), as they would have been extended to 70 years in 1995 when Germany implemented the EU directive (and 70pma if not anonymous or pseudonymous). In all cases (25, 50, 70 year terms) they were PD if not published within that many years of creation. Photos which qualified as artistic works (i.e. more than the older definition of Lichtbilder, say studio portraits) would have been 70pma though. It's only when you get to artistic works that the anonymous distinction gets troublesome. So if they are posters or studio portraits or that type of thing, there may be reason to revert, but I don't think there is reason to revert snapshot-type photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant thanks. I think this area is a good example where Commons tendency to copyright paranoia is leading too strongly.

@Clindberg: As a case in point, would you think a simple portrait like File:Rudolf Dietz (Kiel).jpg would be suitable for the {{PD-anon-70-EU}} license I changed it to? Asking as these sorts of old portraits scanned with poor metadata, are often uploaded due to their value for Wikipedia articles. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As for the "snapshot-type" images (Lichtbilder): AFAIK only images from automated photo booths, surveillance cameras, satellite imagery etc. are now considered to be this type of image with a shortened term of 50 years after publication (or creation if never published) in Germany. Anything done by an actual photographer is 70 years pma, regardless if it is a snapshot, a "simple portrait" or not. de:Lichtbild.

Anonymous works: Those were 70 years post publication ("siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung des Werkes") before 1995-07-01, and they still are after the law was changed. A major difference is that the old law said that if the author's real name / identity became known in any way ("oder der Urheber auf andere Weise als Schöpfer des Werkes bekannt wird") during those 70 years, the formerly anonymous work is now protected for 70 years pma. The way the name became known could be a print of a photograph in an archive somewhere, or an article in some obscure magazine. Because of transitional rules (grandfathering clauses?), the old law still applies to anonymous works published before 1995-07-01 if using the new law would mean a shorter term of protection.

How do you prove that the author's real name / identity did not become known in some way? Basically, you cannot, because you simply cannot be sure that you didn't miss anything even when doing a thorough research. That's why the German Wikipedia doesn't accept any "anonymous works" (de:WP:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist). --Rosenzweig τ 21:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: The old law did not apply at all to "Werke der bildenden Künste" ("Die vorstehenden Bestimmungen sind auf Werke der bildenden Künste nicht anzuwenden."), which means paintings, drawings, sculptures and such. Those were always 70 years pma even if published without an author. This means if you don't know the author of such an "anonymous work", you'll have to assume that it is protected for approx. 170 years (the longest known lifespan of a human - 20 years as author's age at time of publication + 70 years) after publication. --Rosenzweig τ 22:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As the context is old images (i.e. more than 100 years ago), the later provision in the de.wp policy you quote infers that Bild-PD-alt-1923 can apply. So, even though Commons has not formally adopted the somewhat copyright paranoid approach of the German Wikipedia, any photograph dating from 1922 or earlier where the photographer seems unknowable through reasonable search should be fine.

I'm increasingly convinced that the existing PD-anon-70-EU should be fine for these old German photographs, and remains a better fit than the woolier PD-old-assumed which simply glosses over EU law and German law. --Fæ (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fae de.wp does accept images which were created at least 100 years ago if the name of the author or the date (s)he died cannot be found even after thorough research. This is Bild-PD-alt-100.

de.wp also accepts images that were published before 1923, and the name of the author or the date (s)he died cannot be found even after thorough research, which has to be documented and discussed at de:Wikipedia:Dateiüberprüfung/1923. This is Bild-PD-alt-1923. --Rosenzweig τ 22:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: The EU directive also says that if the author becomes known in the 70 years from publication, then it changes to 70pma (although work-for-hire countries must name the author at first publication time to get 70pma). So that issue exists with all EU countries now. If someone comes up with evidence of the name, we could delete then. We also have PD-old-assumed, which is more roughly 120 years, not 170. As for Lichtbild... I believe those were still at most 50 years from publication (or 50 years from creation if not published) in 1995, and covered most photographs. When the EU directive came in, they were mostly converted to full artistic works, but got either 70pma or 70pd on PD-anon-70-EU terms like all other countries (using the new definitions of anonymous). So they were simply extended from 50 to 70 years at worst, and possibly to 70pma if the author was named within 70 years of publication. Commons does not have the general prohibition on anonymous works; if it seems anonymous beyond a reasonable doubt, we will assume that license (though we like to have evidence that it was actually published that long ago, and the author's name was not on the publication in question -- it's still different than the author being unknown on an old photo which turns up on the internet). If a work's author is not generally available on the Internet now with a good search, it's probably good enough to assume anonymous. We aren't going for 100% certainty; the odds are certainly far less of a new work being uploaded CC-BY by an anonymous user actually being a copyvio instead, and we accept those (until copyvio identified). As with anything, if more information becomes available, we can nominate for deletion then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: No, the EU directive (article 1, no. 3) does not say “that if the author becomes known in the 70 years from publication, then it changes to 70pma”. It says “if the author discloses his identity during the period referred to in the first sentence” (70 years), then “the term of protection applicable shall be that laid down in paragraph 1” (70 years pma). “Becoming known” is very broad, the identity could become known in any way - that is what was used in the old German law. “Disclosing his identity” means the author himself (or probably his heir, the new German law specifies this) must disclose it.

As for "Lichtbilder" (simple photographs), those are still protected by German law for 50 years after publication (or creation if never published), not 70 years. But only very few photographs are considered "simple" photographs in Germany - only images from automated photo booths, surveillance cameras, satellite imagery etc. as I already wrote. --Rosenzweig τ 23:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fae: Things like passport photos sure. That one... seems like it was for a school directory or something. I'd probably assume that was simple photos as well. It may be old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}} anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There's lots of good feedback here. I'm surprised we have not already captured these specifics as a workflow/guideline on this project. To pick up on @Rosenzweig: 's postscript about artworks and 170 years, could you give an opinion on File:Huldigung Friedrich Wilhelm IV, bei Gelegenheit der Dombau-Vollendung am 16. October 1880, lithography by Adolf Wallraf.jpg? The birth and death dates of the artist are unknown, and the work is dated as 1880. By your rule of thumb, this would give a theoretical public domain date of 2051, however we are hosting this under {{PD-old-assumed}}. Is this worth a deletion request as a test case? After all, test cases could end up becoming a helpful casebook and then a guideline... --Fæ (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The German wikipedia would accept this image as Bild-PD-alt-100. It's definitely not anonymous, so not really related to the rest of the section. The Thieme-Becker artist dictionary has "Wallraf, Adolph, Lithograph, Köln, 1814.", so he was presumably born or already active in 1814 and must have been dead by 1940. --Rosenzweig τ 22:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

bildindex.de says he worked from 1814 to 1880 and was last mentioned in 1880. --Rosenzweig τ 22:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not anonymous, so PD-old-assumed (and PD-1923) are the only ways we can host it here. The 170 year thing may be true on de-wiki (though I thought they had a 100-year rule which is shorter than Commons, so not sure when 170 comes into play), but it's not a general rule here. For Commons, it's more of a determination that it's OK beyond a significant doubt, and there was something of a consensus around the 120ish year mark. 1880 is approaching 140 years old. If the date of 1814 is known per the above comment, then yes it's fine for sure. Even if "Adolph Walraff jr" is the son of the 1814 Walraff, it's almost certainly still fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's most likely by Wallraff jr, at least bildindex.de says it is. Wallraf jr. apparently was active from 1880 to 1902. --Rosenzweig τ 18:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The uploaded file states the artist as Wallraff Jr, so added the bildindex link to the image page. --Fæ (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I have a similar "Lichtbild" case created today, File:IR15 –Kommandeure1.jpg which I thought was worth appending to this thread rather than creating a separate one. This was derived from File:IR15 –Kommandeure1.jpg which is a simple collection of thumbnail sized official military portraits, relatively poorly reproduced. This specific photograph would have been created in 1857, based on the inscription on the portrait, and was probably taken in Westphalia. The book it was cropped from is a later German publication but only reproduces the photograph. Interestingly the full-page source is licensed as {{Anonymous-EU}} with the author/photographer described as "unknown, not mentioned anywhere", but the crop has not carried this over and perhaps arbitrarily used the generic {{PD-old-assumed}}. Considering the photograph creation date of before 1857 and the source, it seems sensible to go ahead and change the license to the EU specific and less apparently risky one for reusers, of {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Any alternative views? --Fæ (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

For 1857 we could eventually use PD-old instead of PD-old-assumed. PD-anon-70-EU is patent nonsense of course. The fact that uploader could not find an author mentioned anywhere does not make something anonymous. Now it's obviously old enough to be out of copyright if it's not anonymous, not even the slightest reason remains to make up an 'anonymous work' claim. Jcb (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

When you are presented with the source document published in 1913, and it is highly unlikely that extensive research could ever show the official military photograph was published anywhere else before then or that there ever was any possibility of having a named photographer for such a functional photograph, there is no special reason to say that fails any German litmus test of the photographer being "unknown" or that a license intended for unknown authors is "nonsense".

I will change the template from the generic and vague {{PD-old-assumed}} to the slightly less vague {{PD-old-70-1923}}, unless someone can rationalize a more meaningful one or one more precisely based on EU law or German law. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a 1913 publication is likely to be the first publication of a 1857 work. I am fine with the current PD-old-70-1923 in this case. Jcb (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

For something that old, just use PD-old. On the full-page source, w:Richard Knötel is signed as an author on the lower right -- he probably just drew the border or something like that, but should still be mentioned. License of PD-old-70-1923 would be the same though. While the authors of the photographs are not mentioned there, not sure that is evidence that the authors were not mentioned in earlier publications (German copyright had expired by 1913, most likely). I'd just go with PD-old. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

An advantage of PD-old-70-1923 is that it explains why the image is PD in the USA, hence avoiding a second template. --Fæ (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Upload of spectrogram screenshots (Audacity) of self created audio content

Moved from Help desk#Upload of spectrogram screenshots (Audacity) of self created audio content

Good Evening, just doublechecking: I'd like to upload spectrogram representations of bat calls, created via Audacity 2.2.2 software. Audio content is completely my own work (e.g. File:Chirps190918-22s.mp3 - well some bats contributed as well). Audacity SW was released under GPL v2. All artwork outside the spectrogram removed, only scales denoting time and frequency will be included.

May I safely assume a "free image". And if so, under what license may I upload this type of content? --Burkhard (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Burkhard I've moved your question to here, as this is the proper location, so you may have you answer quicker.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 18:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I had chosen Commons:Helpdesk first, because Commons:Upload/screenshot told me so - does it mean that the advice there is outdated? --Burkhard (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't have any copyrighted elements from Audacity, so it could be under any license you could upload your own work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Public domain licensing question

I have more 18th and 19th century Chinese images like File:Mo (貘) lithograph by Charles de Lasteyrie.png that I want to upload but am unsure about the correct license. What should I use? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

18th Century images, you can use PD-old-100 as the creator would have died before 1918. 19th Century is a bit more thorny. China is a Life + 50 country so if you know the name of the works creator and their death date, it's public domain in China if they died before 1968. If the image creator is European, you probably want to make sure that the creator died before 1948 if you know the death date. (Of course, you can basically use PD-old-70 safely for anything created before 1848) If you have a firm date of the image and it is before 1898 and you don't know the death date of the creator, you can use PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your quick and informative help. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tableware

Uploader asked me about the copyright status of this photograph and to delete it if it cannot be hosted here ("artist" died in 2003). I'm inclined to do so, since my instinct tells that's a pretty clear derivative work, but I wanna be sure there are not special rules for "utilitarian" objects and so ...that would overrule COM:CRT. Strakhov (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

For me they look utilitarian. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I may add the artist is a "painter" and his work is mostly based in this kind of stuff. This tableware could have been mass-produced, though (the uploader is not sure about that). Strakhov (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Dorothy Counts in Classroom.jpg

A twitter source says this black and white image is PD? Is it really PD? I don't know who took the photo. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Per here, it is a Don Sturkey photo from September 4, 1957. At the time Sturkey was a staff photographer at the Charlotte Observer. Per the Penn periodical renewals, they did not find any whole issues renewed for that newspaper. So if this photo was published in their newspaper, it may well have not been renewed. But that is probably the only way, and not sure that is confirmed enough. But the photo is all over the net. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like the famous photo was one taken outside on her way to school. Unsure if this was published then, or part of a collection of other photos donated to an archive later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: I guess that it is too uncertain to review this image then. Thanks Carl Lindberg Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Помогите пожалуйста

День добрый.Помогите пожалуйста! Перечитала все что есть про лицензии - в голове каша, а очень нужно: 1.загрузить в статью фото автора методики, которое он мне сам прислал; 2.Загрузить фотокопии его статьи, размещенные в газетах и журналах 3.Фотокопии статей о нем, его интервью в газетах и журналах - к сожалению это было до того, как это начали хранить в нете. Как это можно сделать, нужен ли доя этого WIKIсклад и какая в каждом случае нужна лицензия? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaika1980 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chaika1980: , автор должен связаться с Commons:OTRS и прислать им разрешения на фотографии и тексты. --Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Reproduction prohibited

"Reproduction prohibited. © All rights reserved. Image protected by the Brazilian Copyright Law No. 9610 19/02/1998" Creative Commons!

Search for degu.sasf (Category:Photographs by André Gustavo Stumpf)

• 728 images "Reproduction prohibited. © All rights reserved. Image protected by the Brazilian Copyright Law No. 9610 19/02/1998"
• 115 images "© All rights reserved. Image protected by the Brazilian Copyright Law No. 9610 19/02/1998"

For those 115 the notice appears to have been removed at the source (Flickr). Before I start a mass DR, any thoughts? Perhaps another tag applies? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You can read the explanation here. Ruslik (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Good! I had also asked Stumpf using Flickrmail, the response:

All of my pictures do have a Creative Commons license. Although there are some of my pictures that still have the all rights reserved description simply because I haven't edited that out of their description. It needs to be made manually, and there's a lot of pictures. But as you can see in my gallery, only the older ones, from 2010/2011, still have that description, from 2012 up to the most recent ones, there is no conflicting description. Anyway, all of my pictures are CC BY.

I'll just remove the notices. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

And requested undeletion of File:Tucano (4892097633).jpg. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess you can remove the "reproduction prohibited" clause itself, but everything else should stay the same I think. The CC licenses do state that any copyright notice text must be preserved. Nothing in the rest of it (including "all rights reserved" conflicts with the CC license. And reproduction is prohibited unless the license is followed, so technically that may be OK too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: you're actually right (for CC 2.0, which Flickr uses). On the other hand, the author has removed the notice from the more recent photos and said they would remove it from all photos - if there was an easy way to do that on Flickr. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

File:CORRIÓ SOLO Y LLEGÓ SEGUNDO.jpg

The first version should be deleted, right? --jdx ^Re: 18:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Reproductions of patent text and illustrations

The issue of whether text and illustrations from patents (and patent applications) fall within the public domain (or are subject to copyrights) has been discussed before (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-patent-no notice and Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/02#Do_US_patents_have_copyright_protection?). But confusion remains on the subject.

I believe a fundamental misunderstanding has resulted in flawed community policy. As a result, licensing templates for patent images are in error, and numerous images of patent drawings have been improperly deleted (including images I have posted). I am hoping a rehashing of the topic will result in relative clarity, improved patent drawing licensing templates, and fewer improper image deletions.

Improper conflation of utility patents and design patents

Utitliy patents, including their text and drawings are typically not subject to copyright restrictions.

Based on my reading of past discussions I believe most of the confusion has stemmed from the improper conflation of utility patents and design patents. Those two types of patent are distinct, with different application requirements and intellectual property protection. Current Wikimedia Commons copyright/licensing policy does not appear to adequately reflect that important distinction.

When people refer to patents, they are generally talking about utility patents. Utility patents stake claims to the intellectual property of inventions based on novelty, usefulness and non-obviousness. A utility patent grants its owner the right to exclude others from making anything based on the claims contained in the invention (and the supporting specification and drawings), for a specific period of time. Patents are granted in exchange for the disclosure and benefit of the invention to the public. It is for the benefit of the public that the inventor gives up copyrights to a patent when its application is published. It is for the benefit of the public that utility patent applications must be instructive enough to allow reproduction of the invention by others. That is the basic legal structure by which myriad patent applicants freely reproduce the content of existing patents (prior art), by which various resources freely publish patents online, and by which industry freely reproduces others' inventions (after patent terms have expired). Only in rare exceptions is certain content of a utility patent subject to copyrights (see 37 CFR 1.71(d) and 37 CFR 1.84(s)).

Design patents, which are relatively unknown and uncommon, help safeguard the visual design of utilitarian objects from unauthorized reproduction. The functional item in a design patent need not be novel in and of itself, unlike inventions claimed in utility patents; only its decoration (e.g. shape) must be. And, unlike inventions claimed in utility patents, design patents need not include any claims (technical descriptions of the scope of the intellectual property). The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals ruled in Yardley, 493 F.2d 1389 (C.C.P.A. 1974) that "Congress has not provided that an author inventor must elect between securing a copyright or securing a design patent." For that reason, some have reasonably argued that the content of design patents may be subject to copyrights.

Incorrect licensing templates

Confusion between utility and design patents has resulted in an erroneous claim in the following patent licencing templates: Template:PD-US-patent and Template:PD-US-patent-no_notice.

The licencing templates correctly state that the text and illustrations of US patents generally fall within the public domain. But a note in the templates incorrectly states that images published after April 1989 “are most likely copyrighted”. That note is overly broad because it most certainly does not apply to utility patents, the most common type of patent. I also question the note's relevance to design patents, but that is not my primary concern.

Unfortunately, the incorrect patent licensing templates have been in place since 3 February 2013‎. Who knows how many images have been improperly deleted, or never uploaded at all, as a result? Not until recently, when images I uploaded were deleted, did I notice that the templates are misleading.

Requests

I have the following suggestions for review and comment:

• Correct the patent licensing templates

• Allow uploaders adequate time to object prior to file deletions

• Restore improperly deleted files

I hope the community chooses to adopt these changes, as patents are an amazing public resource.

Thanks for your time. —Catsquisher (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It certainly does apply to utility patents. What the patent describes may not be copyrightable, but the textual description and illustrations themselves are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Prosfilaes, thanks for your response. As I noted above, inventors effectively give up copyrights to their utility patents from the moment the applications are published. That includes text and illustrations. From Patent It Yourself, 14th Edition, 2009 (Nolo), by Patent attorney David Pressman, on page 181: "...feel free to plagiarize! Patents are not covered by copyright..." —Catsquisher (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

37 CFR 1.71(d) which you mentioned above says that inventors may put a copyright notice on a patent, presuming they also include the text "A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever." That is more or less a CC-BY-ND license, and not allowed on Commons. 37 CFR 1.84(s) says the same thing. What's more, since 1989 whether or not a work has a copyright notice on it is irrelevant for copyright law, and these statues talk about a "copyright notice", not copyright itself. Letter of the law seems to be that if there is no copyright notice on a modern patent, you may not even make facsimile reproductions (except for fair use)! Nothing I see says that patents lose their copyright when published, therefore copyright law says they're copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be confused on the meaning and implications of 37 CFR 1.71(d) and other sections of patent and copyright law. 37 CFR 1.71(d) functions to allow patent applicants to include copyrighted material in their applications as long as the owner of the material has given permission for its reproduction "...but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever." In such cases a notice is required to point out that copyrighted material is being included in a document (the patent) that is not typically subject to copyright restrictions. Please see my quotes above and below regarding "patents lose their copyright when published". —Catsquisher (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, from the USPTO website [6]: "Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions." —Catsquisher (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

When you write a patent application, then it will be copyrighted automatically like any other document. Until you submit it to the patent office, it's not even technically a patent application yet. Is there anything in US legislation (I assume we are only talking about the US, other countries will differ) that says that documents lose their copyright when submitted as patent applications, or is it just a custom to ignore copyright issues? --ghouston (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ghouston, thanks for your response. You are correct about an unsubmitted patent application automatically being subject to copyright. That copyright may even be preserved up to the publication of the patent application, typically 18 months after submission. But, as I addressed above, the application and publication process effectively releases the application document into the public domain. I wouldn't characterize that as "just a custom to ignore copyright issues." That process is part of the bargain struck with the patent office in order for an inventor to acquire the exclusionary rights bestowed by an issued patent. And, after a patent is no longer active, the invention itself enters the public domain. Patents are commonly considered to solely benefit inventors, but their initial intent was to benefit society at large, by sharing technology that might otherwise not be developed or see the light of day (e.g. trade secrets). —Catsquisher (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I noticed recently, for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aus Pat 15624-1909.pdf, that the Australian patent legislation has some wording that suggests you can reproduce patent documents without worrying about the copyright. But I'm not sure if that's sufficient for Commons. In particular, it may not permit all kinds or derivate works and commercial use, and presumably wouldn't give any rights in other countries where Australian law doesn't apply. --ghouston (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I cannot speak with much authority about international discrepancies in patent and copyright laws. That said, many treaties are currently enforced in an international effort to standardize intellectual property protection. So, for example, both Australia and the United States have laws placing documents created by their governments (which, believe it or not, technically includes patents) within the public domain. —Catsquisher (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

For further reference, a good rundown on the issue of copyrights in relation to patents can be found here: [7]. —Catsquisher (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support The language seems pretty clear on the issue of utility patents. {{PD-US-utility-patent}} (or similar) can and should be created allowing the uploads of those patents or excerpts from them. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 05:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 Question Hey Postal, won't creating new templates for existing Wikimedia files create extra work and confusion? Why not correct the existing templates? —Catsquisher (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Question But how are we going to distinguish what is copyrighted from what is in public domain in any given patent application? Ruslik (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik, thanks for responding. Patents containing copyrighted material require a notice at the beginning of the specification, as well as at the relevant portions of text or drawing that are copyrighted (see 37 CFR 1.7(d) and 37 CFR 1.84(s)). Please refer to patent license template Template:PD-US-patent-no_notice which addresses the issue: "The text and illustrations of US patents published before March 1, 1989 are in the public domain unless the patent text contains a specific notice that portions are copyrighted." The template is correct that text and illustrations are generally in the public domain unless the patent contains a copyright notice. The template is currently incorrect in stating that only those patents published before March 1, 1989 are in the public domain. Text and drawings from patents published after that date also fall within the public domain. —Catsquisher (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Correct the existing templates and restore the deleted utility patent files. (Begin by restoring the most recently deleted utility patent files -- correcting the templates will solve this issue going forward.) - tucoxn\^talk 19:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment I contacted User:MGodwin regarding the issue. Mike Godwin has extensive experience in copyright law and was general counsel (and later consulting attorney) for the Wikimedia Foundation from 2007 to 2012. Mike has given me permission to quote from emails he just sent me. He wrote the following:

"It seems worth mentioning in your discussion that the whole point of the patents process is disclosure. Disclosure of patents necessarily requires reproducibility both of patent descriptions and patent diagrams. Researchers have to be able to make copies of prior art. (And, of course, in practice this is done all the time.) There's some blurriness with software patents, but typically the solution has been to disclose a chunk of the code (but maybe not the whole code) as part of the patent filing, and that I believe becomes findable and duplicable when the patent is granted. (Quite commonly, software is patented and also copyrighted.)"

Mike also referenced the following quote from the USPTO website [8]:

"Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions. The inventors' rights to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States for a limited time is not compromised by the publication of the description of the invention. In other words, the fact that a patent's description may have been published without copyright restrictions does not give you permission to manufacture or use the invention without permission from the inventor during the active life of the patent. See MPEP § 600 - 608.01(v) regarding the right to include a copyright or mask work notice in patents."

—Catsquisher (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

About the original Requests:

• Correct the patent licensing templates:  Support

• Allow uploaders adequate time to object prior to file deletions: I am confused here. I believe images going through regular DR process usually allow adequate time to discuss, so I would  Oppose this as it is worded at present.

@Jarekt: Thanks for your comments. To my knowledge my account was not notified prior to the deletion of the following files by User:Magog_the_Ogre:

File:Serapid LinkLift Patent.jpg

I don't understand why standard notifications to uploaders prior to deletion of files would be problematic or undesirable. —Catsquisher (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Catquisher: You weren't notified because you didn't upload them here. I did notify you on English Wikipedia of the discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Magog the Ogre that at the moment the best we can do is to notify the uploader, ifen if that person might not have much to do with the image. I do not think you can write a tool to figure out the who is the actual author, so we can notify them, based on often really mangled wikitext produced by some transfer bot. Hopefully with Structured data we might be able to keep track of this better in the future. --Jarekt (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Restore improperly deleted files:  Support in general; however it might be a lot of work to find such files.

Catsquisher do you believe we have any images of non-utility patents which should not be covered by the improved license? --Jarekt (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I am not aware of any patent image files on Wikimedia that are subject to copyrights. Perhaps a js bot could be developed to help retrieve improperly deleted patent files? —Catsquisher (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not know much about JS bots, to work with deleted files you need admin rights and almost no bots are granted admin rights, since an admin bot not working right can do (potentially) a lot of damage. Your best bet finding such files would be to search deletion requests for specific licenses or words related to patents. --Jarekt (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Econterms: from d:Wikidata:WikiProject Patents - I thought you might wish to comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Electronic Arts logos vs PD-textlogo

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

So what about these? File:Electronic-Arts-Logo.svg File:Electronic Arts logo.svg File:Electronic Arts logo black.svg File:EA-Logo.svg They all use the stylized E and A. CMetalCore (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi All, CMC has raised Question on the validity of {{PD-textlogo}} for Category:Electronic Arts logos, I believe it is worthy of a wider discussion. The objective should be to discuss the applicability of PD-textlogo and possible deletions if its void. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey CMetalCore. These should be fine as a text logo. The stylization itself is minimal and geometric, and the threshold for originality in the US (where EA is based) is comparatively high. GMG^talk 13:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sanity check

The Washington Post has this image credited to the BOEM, which would make it in the public domain. But am I wrong in thinking that they might be crediting the data used to make the image and not the image itself? Web searches don't seem to find the image on any .gov domain currently. GMG^talk 13:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right. "Source" obviously refers to the source of the data. "TIM MEKO/THE WASHINGTON POST" is the credit for the visualization. --bjh21 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I agree with Bjh.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How difficult would it be to turn this into a push pin map? I don't have that much experience with push pin maps honestly, but there doesn't seem to be literally any image available anywhere to illustrate the article. GMG^talk 13:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be relatively easy to illustrate the dataset on OpenStreetMap. However someone needs to do a teeny bit of research first, by finding the dataset and confirming a suitable copyright release for that data. Preferably the dataset can be downloaded in an easy to transform format which can then be imported into other tools or websites for rendering.

A shortcut would be to ask about this map at https://twitter.com/BOEM_DOI. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found an alternative source for coordinates and sorted out the pushpin map issue. Thanks for the input everybody. GMG^talk 15:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's better than Source: Google for a stock photo. The Dutch Public Broadcasting Agency, violating copyright since the invention of the internet. How are civilians supposed to care about copyright if the government doesn't even give a damn. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

you also have https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Map_Data?rdfrom=commons:Help:Map_Data

no one cares. (less than 1%) why a small cadre of volunteer functionaries care more than the author's guild, and how it impacts an image repository is a better question. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh god, there's a data namespace? That is sure to be well above my level of computering and I'm going to never touch it lest I inevitably find a way to blow up the entire project and delete my account. GMG^talk 12:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Photos of Gloria Stuart artwork

I'm not sure if File:Gloria Stuart's Watts Towers-4828-2.jpg and File:Example of Gloria Stuart's Découpage.pdf can be kept per COM:PCP as licensed? The photos themselves seem to be simple mechancial reproductions per COM:2D copying, so I don't think they're eligible for copyright protection. Neither of the photographed artworks, however, seem old enough to be PD and there copyright status is unclear.

In addition, I'm also not sure about File:Gloria Stuart-French black oak forest.jpg; I remember a VPC discussion I had about en:Ikebana works and the consensus seemed to be they're not eligible for copyright protection, so the same probably applies to en:Bonsai works too, but I'm not sure. There's also the movie poster shown in the photo, but that seems to be partly obscurred and likely COM:DM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, IMO the bonzai is fine, but we need a permission for the artworks: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Miramaribelle. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Edmond de Belamy.png

Hi, The latest copyright question: what about the copyright of art produced by AI? (from French VP). One thing is sure, it is costly: [9]. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Handing a text to a translation program creates no new copyright. Things like GIMP's Oilify (make an image look like an oil painting) create no new copyright, no matter how "intelligent" the filter is. But if someone makes an AI and selects a set of paintings to feed it and adjusts the AI until they like the output, it starts to look a lot more like someone using the computer to make art, which is clearly copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I read, it seems that the AI stops itself when it "finds" that its creation is quite different from the works it used to create it. This means that there is no human intervention in this work except to code the AI. Pamputt (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

But there was surely a series of previous AIs that were rejected for not being satisfactory in some way. And there was human intervention in the choice of images. It's hard to tell without clear technical details, and even with those details, I don't know of any case law, much less black-letter law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Music Modernization Act and U.S. pre-1923 sound recordings.

President Trump is expected to sign the Music Modernization Act either later today or tomorrow. The Music Modernization Act will free up some older sound recordings to the public domain while sound recordings from 1957 to 1971 still have to wait until 2067 to become public domain

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180917/17305440659/compromise-music-modernization-act-will-bring-old-sound-recordings-into-public-domain-tiptoe-towards-orphan-works-solution.shtml

For pre-1923 sound recordings in the U.S., Trump signing it opens a new 3 year countdown for those to finally enter the public domain

"PRE-1923 RECORDINGS.—In the case of a sound recording first published before January 1, 1923, the transition period described in subparagraph (A)(i)(II) shall end on December 31 of the year that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this section"

2018+3 is 2021 so it would expire on December 31, 2021 (so becomes public domain in 2022). Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Was about to come here to ask if Commons or other WP projects would be affected by the MMA, which is now law. Basically, I don't know enough if any state failed to pass copyright protection to recordings pre 1972 that it is possible to have a recording between 1923 and 1972 that is in the public domain due to the state it was recorded in (and if we'd have any files that would fit that), since as I read that part, it pulls those recordings back under federal copyright. --Masem (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not a lawyer but my basic understanding is that state laws essentially didn't need any notice or registration & protection fell under common law. MMA supercedes state laws so stuff actually begins to enter public domain in 2022. 1923 sound recordings enter PD in 2024(95 year term + 5 year transition period for 1923-1946 sound recordings+1). Started a DR on a 1915 United States sound recording (although my personal preference would be to keep) to see what Commons consensus will be on this. Abzeronow (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, section 202 of the Classics Protection and Access Act does include US federal preemption for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972. However, our existing US templates like {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, etc. will not apply to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 and first published in the United States. As a form of compensation for losing state statutory and/or common law protection sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 get a transition period that provides protection for few years beyond the normal term of protection of 95 years after the year of first publication.

Now that the law has been signed, effective immediately with regards to sound recordings fixed (i.e. created) before February 15, 1972, if first published:

• pre-1923, US copyright ends on December 31, 2021.
• 1923–1946, US copyright ends on December 31 of the year that is 100 years after the year of first publication.
• 1947–1956, US copyright ends on December 31 of the year that is 110 years after the year of first publication.
• 1957-1971, US copyright ends on February 15, 2067.
• 1972-1978, US copyright ends on December 31 of the year that is 95 years after the year of first publication.
• post-1978, US copyright ends on 70 years after the death of the author.

We're going to have to give some thought to what to do with the ~400 files using the {{PD-US-record}} template as it is clearly no longer applicable (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record). I'm inclined towards deleting sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, published 1923 or after, and using the {{PD-US-record}} template (with appropriate "Category:Undelete in <year>" tags). I lean towards grandfathering the sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, published before 1923, and using the {{PD-US-record}} template. The DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:17929A-Lucia di Lammermoor.ogg seems premature until we've had time to discuss how to handle the {{PD-US-record}} template (which that 1915 file uses).

I think I understand how this will interact with the URAA. Under the URAA sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 first published outside the United States were granted US copyright protection despite the lack of subject matter protection in the US. This copyright expires 95 years after first publication. However, despite being granted a federal copyright that would eventually expire, these foreign works were still eligible for state statutory and/or common law protection as US copyright law previously did not preempt state protection until 2067. It appears that these foreign works are now no longer protected by state law, but they will be eligible for the same transition period as US works. So while {{PD-1996}} will not be applicable to to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 and first published outside the United States, it appears that they will be free of both US federal and state protection on the same schedule as sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 and first published in the United States. —RP88 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I could request the Lucia di Lammermoor DR be withdrawn and just file a new DR on the now obsolete template so we can figure out how to apply the Music Modernization Act to the 400+ sound recordings that are under that template. Abzeronow (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

That might make sense. I'll post a comment at {{PD-US-record}} directing anyone watching the Template discussion page to this discussion. —RP88 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Lucia di Lammermoor DR has been withdrawn. Should I start a DR on the PD-US-record template or just wait until a new template is created and file a massive DR on any files that consensus determines are no longer able to be on this site due to the MMA? Abzeronow (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: My thought is to file DRs on all sound recordings that were first fixed prior to February 15, 1972, given that the MMA appears to apply to all such recordings.

As far as filing a DR on a sound recording, three possible exceptions that come to mind are (1) pre-1972 recordings that are works of the US federal government, (2) pre-1972 recordings that were first published in a country that does not have copyright relations with the US (such as Iran) and for which the recording is no longer under copyright in its country of origin, and (3) pre-1972 recordings that were released under a free license by the copyright holder. There is also the question of pre-1972 sound recordings from Edison Records; Commons has a template, {{PD-Edison Records}}, for such recordings. As of this writing, the PD-Edison Records template indicates that the Edison Records sound recordings are in the public domain, but it is not clear that that is actually the case. For the files to be deleted, each deletion request would have an "Undelete in <year>" category based on when the recording or recordings were first published, as previously suggested by RP88.

Starting in 2022, it would be possible to have a revised version of the PD-US-record template which specifies that sound recordings published prior to 1923 are in the public domain in the US, but that other pre-1972 recordings are still copyrighted, along with information about copyright terms. (The template could of course be adjusted over time as more pre-1972 sound recordings enter the public domain.) --Gazebo (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that the MMA means that all pre-1972 recordings are now covered by US federal copyright and that such recordings will no longer be subject to copyright under state laws and/or common law copyright at the state level? (The articles about the MMA that I have looked at seem to talk mainly about such things as mechanical licenses for recordings in general and also about digital audio transmissions of pre-1972 recordings.)

If it is in fact accurate to say that pre-1972 recordings are now covered solely by US federal copyright law, then does a recording fully enter the public domain once the copyright term specified in the MMA expires, or does the recording then become re-copyrighted under state laws and/or state common law copyright? (For example, does a recording that was published prior to 1923 fully enter the public domain on January 1, 2022?)

Based on the assumptions that pre-1972 recordings are solely covered by US federal copyright, I have produced the following reworked version of the {{PD-US-record}} template as a first step. (It is almost certain that further revisions and adjustments could be done, but this is a start. Also, if there is a way to display the reworked template in collapsed form, that would be useful.)

This sound recording was first fixed prior to February 15, 1972. Under Title II (Classics Protection and Access) of the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, which was signed into law on October 11, 2018, sound recordings that were first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 are copyrighted in the United States as follows: Recordings that were first published prior to 1923 will enter the public domain on January 1, 2022. Recordings that were first published between 1923 and 1946 are copyrighted for a period of 100 years after first publication. Recordings that were first published between 1947 and 1956 are copyrighted for a period of 110 years after first publication. Recordings that were published after 1956 and first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 will enter the public domain on February 15, 2067. Note that sound recordings that were first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 are a special case under US copyright law and are not subject to the same formalities as other works. In particular, the copyright terms given above for pre-1972 recordings apply regardless of whether a recording was published with a copyright notice, or whether a recording was registered with the US Copyright Office, or whether a recording's copyright was renewed. Files bearing this tag may be deleted in the future, depending on the outcome of community discussions and new case law. If you are the copyright holder of this sound recording and do not wish to have it hosted on Commons, please contact our designated agent.

--Gazebo (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Links from the Copyright Office https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/pre1972-soundrecordings/index.html and from the Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/new-music-modernization-act-has-major-fix-older-recordings-will-belong-public As far as I can understand it, this does preexempt the state laws(which don't have really have an expiration date), 2067 was a federal date put there as it when state laws would no longer apply. For sound recordings before 1957, MMA changes when they will finally become public domain. Good first revision of the template. Abzeronow (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The proposed updated text for {{PD-US-record}} looks good to me. Even with the updated text we may find it necessary to delete some of the files now that Federal preemption appears to apply, since the original ambiguity that was used as the rationale for keeping these around is no longer applicable. —RP88 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Of note, the page COM:L has information on copyright and sound recordings that is now outdated (assuming that the information in this discussion about state-level copyrights being completely preempted is accurate.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

font

Hi, i want to upload a svg file (i will use object-to-path, so not scalable) using a font which is free to use for "Personal" usage but not commercial. Can i upload such SVG file? According to this & this, yes. Can someone confirm please? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

When text is converted to paths it remains scalable vector art, so the paragraph about rasterized fonts isn’t really applicable. That said, the character outlines are only part of a working font (or indeed only the output of the font software), so IMO the same consideration should apply. That is, any restrictions on the font itself should not apply to documents containing text that uses it. Opinions do vary on this point, though.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: So, i should be ok if upload png/jpg version instead of svg? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that would be safest, if you’re worried that someone will contest the copyright. (PNG is much better than JPEG for type, drawings, &c. if you do take that route.) Personally, I would upload just as you describe at the beginning, because I don’t think that outlined glyphs are fonts any more—as I described above. (Assuming nobody paid me to do the artwork.) Even commercial foundries don’t assert any licensing claims over such uses AFAIK. And of course SVG is far more useful for editability. A compromise would be to rasterize only the text objects in question, as embedded images within an SVG file (assuming there’s more content than just the type in question), preserving not only the ease of translating or adapting it but also the rendering quality of the rest of the drawing, while strictly complying with the wording of {{PD-font}}.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

আফতাবুজ্জামান -- Under United States law, a font glyph shape intended to be used functionally as a character (i.e. letter, numeral, punctuation etc.) is not really copyrightable, but the software which generates such shapes is copyrightable as software. The situation is different in some other countries, and possibly also in the U.S. if a font contains abstract art (rather than character glyphs)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Logo Comic Con

Bonjour, j'aimerai pouvoir utiliser des images de logo du comic con paris pour un onglet sur l'évolution du logo. Mais malheureusement je ne trouve aucune image libre de droits montrant les différents logos. Pourriez-vous m'aidez svp ?

Merci d'avance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacha Varupenne (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 October 2018‎ (UTC)

• @Sacha Varupenne: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to use comic con paris logo images for a tab on the evolution of the logo. But unfortunately I can not find any royalty free image showing the different logos. Could you help me please? Thank you in advance.
 

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright renewal (or, fishing for an excuse to upload)

What are the chances that this 1967 work is one of those cases where we can construct some complex argument about the copyright not being renewed, so I can upload it and hack about a million diagrams and maps out of it? GMG^talk 15:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

PD-US-not_renewed can only apply for works published before 1964 (since the renewal requirement, which was previously required after 28 years, was eliminated in 1992). From 1964 until March 1989, published works did need a copyright notice. So, if that one is PD-US-no_notice, it's OK, otherwise we'd need a free license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't really work much with mid-20th Century stuff ... kindof because it's a little bonkers. So I didn't really know. I reached out to them via email to see if they can freely license some content. Who know if it'll go anywhere though. GMG^talk 19:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

it is not that complex. you have Template:PD-US-1978-89. do not see a notice, and https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First - do not see "Alaska Department of Natural Resources" here. as ockerbloom says, 90% of works did not bother with formalities, even the easy ones (and he's making a list http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/). too bad Alaska is not Florida. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I know right? God bless Florida. And on that note, I'm still not sure why the WMF isn't actively lobbying regional and national governments to release their official works into the public domain. GMG^talk 13:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a copyright notice anywhere in that document? Normally it should be on the title page. If not, then I think {{PD-US-no notice}} would be accurate. Just be careful of any images credited to an outside source, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Pic of hands in a plaster mold

Hi, I am new here and I want to make sure that I am not violating any copyright law. Here is a pic I took which I have uploaded to Commons. It contains more than Casals' hands, as you can see, but they are the main focus here. I am not sure who the artist was or the year. I can find out. But I am pretty sure it has not been more than 80 years. Is this type of contribution allowed? Or should I request a speedy deletion? Thanks. --Prof.D.H.R. (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Prof.D.H.R.: Hi, To be allowed, artist should have died more than 80 years ago, which is unlikely here. S/he should be mentioned anyway. It may be kept if FoP applies, which I am not sure. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks for the reply. I will find out the artist's name. Would it change the matter if the pic is taken from farther away as part of a larger set of objects? I would suppose that otherwise would limit significantly what we can bring to Commons. Just trying to learn the system. Thanks. Prof.D.H.R. (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really, unless it is just a tiny detail in a large picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. But sorry to insist on a clearer answer, is this pic violating the law? And would it make a difference if the artist grant permission? Thanks. Prof.D.H.R. (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that "violating the law" is different; a file may be legally just fine to upload, per fair use or non-commercial use or something like that in a country's law, but may still not conform to site policy of being "free" as there may be too many restrictions on commercial or other use. Commons also does not get into any laws other than copyright. If that is a sculpture, the photo would normally be a derivative work. It would have to be taken in a jurisdiction where Commons:Freedom of panorama applies for it to be OK here, or have the underlying work licensed by the artist. Don't think that Spain allows that inside of museums. On the other hand, if that is simply a mold taken directly from the person's actual hands and not a sculpture, I'm not sure that it is copyrightable, thus there would be no "work" to be derivative of, and the photo is fine. It may depend on the details of how that cast was created. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

German-language title pages

Are German-language title pages of works acceptable, like File:Chern Thesis.png? George Ho (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That's way below any COM:TOO, so yes. --Magnus (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Title pages of this kind shouldn't be a problem in any language, I think. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Project: statues, sculptures and parks

• Hi, I was about to start photographing all the statues, sculptures, monuments and parks in my hometown of Mayagüez, PR and neighboring towns. The purpose was to upload them here in Commons as part of a larger and long-term project of creating, expanding and improving articles of the island’s western region in the English, Spanish, French and Portuguese Wikipedias. Students and colleagues were to lend a hand. But after trying to make sense of the derivatives policy and archived discussions in the Help Desk and Village Pump records, I have grown worried that you might not appreciate many of my pics. A bunch of these statues were erected in the last 20 years. The confusion increased when I saw that we have in fact pics of recent PR statues with no further explanation than a generic permission from the photographer. What are my options? And what are the best practices when a country’s monuments are relatively new? I found one case of special interest because it seemed to allow the artist to grant permission for the publication of his statue in WP. Thanks for your help. Prof.D.H.R. (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

you might want to upload them to flickr and evaluate, since PR has US freedom of panorama. i.e. we look to the SIRIS sculpture database, [10] about whether there is a copyright notice on the work before 1977. (for example [11]) an email release sent in by commons:OTRS would work also, but it is some work. images of sculptures should have 2 licenses, one for work and one for photo. for the contemporary works, you could write an article about the sculpture, and upload a fair use images at english wikipedia, i.e. [12] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Slowking4 Thanks for the links and suggestions. So, we can look into the SIRIS database to check for copyright claims? What if none are there? I like the idea of fair use, but few statues would justify an article on its own. I still need to create a list to make sure, but I think that granting release of the copyrights will have to be the route to follow for the majority. Still, what would we do with the statues that the artist is not alive anymore but it has not passed the 80 years stretch? Prof.D.H.R. (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

sorry about the copyright mess. yes, the old "save outdoor sculpture" dated 1999, now in SIRIS, leaves out a lot of contemporary sculpture. (but after 1989, did not have formalities to document, as it is PMA+70) i have had some success emailing living sculptors, who are pretty easy going. (say 90%, there is a minority who want to keep rights) for the dead sculptors, copyright passes to the artist's estate, the nephews tend to be less sharing (say 50%) this is the orphan hammock, where we do not necessarily know who the rights holder is. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Prof.D.H.R.: Puerto Rico is rather complicated (but I suppose you already knew that..), but they indeed don't seem to have any freedom of panorama law.

"I found one case of special interest because it seemed to allow the artist to grant permission for the publication of his statue in WP" Sorry this is not sufficient. They must allow the photo of their work to be distributed with a Creative Commons attribution or attribution-sharealike license, for anybody to use.

"The confusion increased when I saw that we have in fact pics of recent PR statues with no further explanation than a generic permission from the photographer" This happens because we're lazy and too obsessed with deleting harmless selfies.

"Still, what would we do with the statues that the artist is not alive anymore"

Copyright gets inherited. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for your answer and the link above. In regards to what the artist can do. Can he release permission for the picture to "be distributed with a Creative Commons attribution or attribution-sharealike license"? If so, is there a format/template he can use? And, sorry for my ignorance on these matters, what do you mean by "Copyright gets inherited"? Thanks. Prof.D.H.R. (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• • One more question: what about a picture of a small park that has a statue on it? Prof.D.H.R. (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Prof.D.H.R.: see COM:OTRS for instructions and a form letter for artists to release their work (or at least permission for photographs thereof). As for images that include copyrighted works as small or peripheral details, see COM:DM. And what Alexis was getting at with “inherited” is that permission must be sought from the sculptor’s estate, heirs or assigns.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

These Images License May need a Template

I asked Lymantria these question below and he made a reply below: As an aside, do you have any idea what the license is for these 2 images below:

• File:34-msr-pilaster-relief-fragment-5-repaired-cut-2.stl
• File:62-msr-pan-mask-5-repaired-cut-2.stl

• At the source if you click on 'technical information' an unclear license is given. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this needs some template of its own. I do not have time now to dive into it. Perhaps you could drop how to deal with this license at the village pump. Lymantria (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a solution here? There are other issues with the same unclear license like these 2 files.

• File:Msr-valeria-maximilia-5.stl
• File:Msr-valeria-maximilia-5.stl

I have to sign off now as its late at night here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Copied from Village pump - Lymantria (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

They are broadly compatible with CC-BY. Ruslik (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Photographs of Hitler in the Reichstag

Examining Category:Reichstag sessions 1933-1945 shows a selection of very poor licenses, ranging from CC-BY-SA through to {{Arquivo Nacional PD-license}}.

I think there is no evidence that these are public domain. Under German copyright law, these are too creative to escape a potential claim of copyright, and it seems highly unlikely that academic quality research would not show up names of news photographs in the Reichstag during these speeches, making a PD-EU-anon argument unlikely to stick. I am tempted to raise a deletion request for the whole category. Any views on whether a legally correct general PD license could apply for these photographs? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If the Bundesarchiv had rights to the photos, theirs should be fine (and are the bulk of the category). Second, those photos would have originally expired 25 years after publication in Germany. They would have been restored to 70 years from publication if anonymous, or 70pma if not, in 1995. If the photographers made themselves known before 70 years, that would change the term, but discovering authors names today would not (only if we find they were previously named). Again, that would likely not matter for the Bundesarchiv ones. If there were foreign correspondents taking pictures, which were then first published in those other countries, Germany is not the country of origin and it would be some other country's laws to worry about. I don't see what the "poor" licenses are mostly. The only ones may be the IWM photo attributed to Heinrich Hoffman; while that may be PD in the UK due to seized wartime copyrights, that would still be under copyright in Germany, and if first published there that could be an issue. It's also in heavy use and has been here for 10 years; unsure if that survived scrutiny of Hoffman's works before. The PD-USGov one is probably not the correct license, though it could still be PD if it is seized material for the U.S. and PD-anon-70-EU for Germany (or if it was a U.S. photographer, then Germany's law may not apply at all, and maybe PD-USGov is even correct). It could well be at least simultaneously published in the U.S., meaning the URAA would be avoided. If you find the photographer's name, that would add some clarity. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

They are Ullstein Bilder but the photographer's name is not mentionned. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Carl for putting me right. This search shows four files which do not have the Bundesarchiv attribution. One is colourized, which we can probably safely ignore, the remaining 3 are:

1. File:Hermann Goering addressing the Reichstag.jpg Which is credited to Hoffmann Heinrich, who died in 1957. The licence being used is PD-UKGov, which from a Commons perspective is clearly wrong and should be replaced.
2. File:Hitler accepts the ovation of the Reichstag after announcing an Anschluss with Austria, Berlin, March 1938.jpg This photograph is sourced to the US National Archives, under the collection of the Office for Emergency Management and has been given a licence of PD-USGov. However it is not stated if this was taken by a non-German photographer, and it is possible that this was an official German photograph which was copied to foreign press agencies. Some further research may find alternative German sources.
3. File:Adolf Hitler discursa no Parlamento alemão.tif This is sourced to the Brazil Acervo Arquivo Nacional. This is very similar to other photographs from the Bundesarchiv, but I have yet to find an exact match. The file was uploaded as date and photographer as unknown and was not given an online archive source.

For these three cases, it is clear that we should doubt the current licensing, but unclear what they should change to. --Fæ (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

For #2, unless there us some evidence to the contrary, this website claims that it is a government photographer. Barring evidence to the contrary, I think we should accept that. (Also, keep in mind that the US seized a number of Nazi copyrights and considers them to be PD, so I guess that is a possible interpretation of what they are saying too.) If this photo was a press photo, I would expect the National Archives to say so because they are diligent about such things, so this one I would think is good. For #1, per en:Heinrich Hoffmann (photographer)#Photographic archive, this should be at the very least be public domain in the US, but maybe not in Germany? Germany likes to claim copyright over Nazi things to prevent their publication and so this may need to be moved to :en for a decade. For #3, I have no idea. --B (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Splitting up Commons:Copyright rules by territory

See Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory#Split page content into subpages. The idea is to split out the country-specific rules into sub-pages like Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Afghanistan and drop them from the main Commons:Copyright rules by territory page, which would retain the introductory paragraphs on international law, authorship and derivative works, but would have a template like the one below at the top and bottom of the page for quick navigation to individual pages for each territory.

Benefits:

• Quicker access to each set of territory-specific rules, because the template would be more compact than the present table of contents
• Encourage development of more complete, structured and sourced material for each territory
• Get rid of the rather awkward method of editing summary table entries
• Provide natural, territory-specific talk pages for discussions about each territory's rules
• Eliminate the potential for forking by putting all information about each territory's rules in one place
• Each territory rules page can point to (or transclude?) the relevant sections in Commons:Freedom of panorama and Commons:Stamps/Public domain.
  • Or vice-versa?
  • Are there are other standard pages they should point to?

Does anyone see any problem with this? I can do it if there are no major objections. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You need to start a RFC fro this. Who's going to patrol all this, btw? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems as good place as any to get comments on a technical improvement like this.

On patrolling, my guess is that a page dedicated to Spanish copyright rules, for example, would have more chance of being watched by people with Spanish expertise than the present general-purpose page. The sub-page for Spain should be linked to (and cross-checked against) es:Anexo:Derecho de autor en España. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support In this case, smaller pages are much easier to maintain. --Yann (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment For many countries there exists little information. It may not be enough for a separate page. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Most countries are members of WIPO, which usually has an online version of their IP laws here. If we can see the law (and use autotranslate if needed) we will get several paragraphs worth of information: the types of works covered, definitions and durations for individual, anonymous, pseudonymous, joint, derived and collective works, special rules for audiovisual works, applied arts, right of panorama, government works and so on. There may be a few cases where we cannot see the IP law but it is worth saying something. It seems simplest to give those countries small pages holding the information we have, rather than make exceptions and have a few countries in a list and most in stand-alone articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I took a shot at starting a stand-alone article Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Solomon Islands for a country that is not in the present list. This needs review, but I think illustrates the sort of thing that could be done fairly easily for most countries. I would say we should aim for this level of detail for all countries. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support It's easier to manage and makes more sense. --Rezonansowy (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Easier to maintain. ReaperDawn 02:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Support.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Support, right it's just all endless scrolling, especially on a mobile computer. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose It will lead to a situation much worse than now: the valuable information from the central page will be removed but many of those individual pages will never be created. In addition, the summary table has it own value and its elimination will serve no purpose. Ruslik (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I was not clear. I am proposing to first create the 138 individual pages, one per territory in the list, using the content from the list, and replacing their content in the list with entries like

===Solomon Islands===

See [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Solomon Islands]].

I expect this to take a few days of cut-and-paste work. When all the individual pages have been created, I will add the template listing them to the top and bottom of Commons:Copyright rules by territory and delete the list, which will now consist only of "see xxx" entries. No information will be lost, just transferred to the individual pages. I will then go back through the individual pages doing clean-up like linking them to corresponding Wikipedia articles and making sure they hold a link to the WIPO page and IP law where available. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: I thought you were going to transclude the subpages into the list, like DRs are transcluded into daily pages.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I had not thought of that. I was thinking that users would mostly want information about a particular country's laws to resolve some question, would sometimes be interested in more general topics like international law, but would never want to see all the specifics laws one after the other in alpha sequence. Two issues:

• The sub-page heading levels would all have to drop down by two, e.g. start with "====" rather than "==", which could be hard to police.
• The list would become enormous if, as I expect, the subpages grow to give reasonable coverage of each set of local laws. If Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Solomon Islands gives typical depth of coverage (and some will give much more) that is about 40 lines on my laptop and 6,000 bytes. 140 pages would translate to 5,600 lines and 840,000 bytes, compared to the already very large 250,000 bytes.

A compromise approach would be to make a separate list page that transcluded all the sub-articles, and link it from the main page. The list page could use level-1 headings, one per territory, which would avoid the first issue. See User:Aymatth2/Sandbox4 for a mock-up using four test pages I started on Bhutan, Malta, Monaco and Solomon Islands. With 140 similar-sized pages, this would be huge. I can't really see anyone using it, but it would be easy enough to do. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: There are >300 links to COM:CRT, mostly to anchors on that page like COM:CRT#United States. I would like to preserve their functionality, along with the functionality of the anchors on the target page Commons:Copyright rules by territory.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: That is a good point. A clean way to handle it would be to create all the sub-pages, but leave the skeleton list with entries like,

===United States===

See [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States]].

Then work through the list of "what links here" for Commons:Copyright rules by territory and change the links to point to the sub-pages where appropriate. Also check for internal links to anchors within Commons:Copyright rules by territory and change them to point to the sub-pages. After that has been done, there should be no problem deleting the skeleton list, I think. Good catch. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that the design your are proposing will be helpful for many contributors including me. I often look information about several countries at once and do not want to jump from one page to another. In addition the navbox that you are proposing to place at the top (placing it at the top is actually against the established practice) and bottom will not be displayed at mobile at all making your page utterly useless for mobile users. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: I will set up the transcluded list, like User:Aymatth2/Sandbox4 but much bigger, for users who like to see all the rules on one page. Thanks for pointing out the mobile problem. I have fixed the navbox so it displays on mobile – a very important concern given that so many casual users will be using a mobile and need quick access to the relevant rules. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There are a good reason why navboxes are not shown in mobile: they simply are not designed for mobile and look awful on small screens. So, what you are proposing is just a bad design. Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the reason why the navbox template is suppressed in mobile view used is something to do with support for the show/hide functionality. See right for the list of sub-pages displayed in infobox mode. I think it looks o.k. on a small screen – a lot more compact than the present TOC. It can be tweaked to look better if needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment If we do migrate to many subpages at COM:CRT, we should consider redirecting the discussion pages of the subpages to the main Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory discussion page, as I don't think this page currently attracts enough discussion to warrant ~100 discussion pages and is already likely where a reader would find any previous discussion for a country section. There is already a hat-note at the top of Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory saying that this is in effect, but existing subpage discussion pages appear to be mostly nonexistent or empty rather than redirects. For comparison, English Wikipedia adopted this discussion page strategy for the dozens of CS1 citation templates (e.g. w:en:Template:Cite web, etc.). —RP88 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit uncomfortable about that, given that the discussions will mostly be about the rules for a specific country. What I think has been happening is that discussions, and sometimes the detailed rules, have wandered off to the template talk pages, maybe other places. See Template talk:PD-Afghanistan or Template talk:PD-Chile for examples. By opening up country-specific pages for the copyright rules, I am optimistic that we will not just encourage more depth to the rules, which can linked from country-specific license tags, but also provide a more natural place for discussion about those rules. Part of the longer term clean-up should be to advertise the new sub-pages on the country-specific template talk pages and ask for help in improving the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You do not seem to get a simple thing: there will never be any talk page discussions for >90% of the countries. Nobody will watch them and they will just serve as targets for vandalism. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to assume good faith, but I will watch them. Maybe we can get some other volunteers, people interested in these countries, to watch them too. Aymatth2 (talk)

• Oppose. Just a matter of personal taste and the convenience of having everything in one place. In readable, standard sized text (I'd need ctrl+ctrl+ to read the tiny navbox letters). And the benefit of having many eyes watching changes. Retired electrician (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Retired electrician: I have increased the infobox font size - it was a bit small. You may have missed the point in the above discussion that there will still be a consolidated view of all the individual pages, like User:Aymatth2/Sandbox4 only much bigger. You will still be able to see everything in one place in readable, standard sized text. The change makes maintenance easier, but does not remove any functionality. To your point about "many eyes watching", if you are interested in monitoring changes to the copyright laws of the United Kingdom (for example) you have to watch Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom-table. You will not see the changes if you just watch Commons:Copyright rules by territory. That will remain true. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Work in progress

Based on the feedback above, it seems that most (but not all) reviewers support the proposal. There are no show-stoppers, so I will go ahead. Several useful points have been made that I will address:

• I will make 140-odd country-specific sub-pages to hold all the existing content. There will be no loss of content. The post-move clean-up process will add content, so coverage of each country's rules will become more complete.
• As User:RP88 has pointed out, the talk pages, at least for the smaller countries, may have low activity and should perhaps be redirected to the main talk page, or at least have a template advising contributors to use the main talk page if they want to get attention. I will do this for sub-pages where nothing happens for a few weeks. The larger, more active countries presumably will still need their own talk pages.
• As I make the sub-pages I will replace the content in each section of the main list with a [[See subpage]] entry. To address the issue User:Jeff G. identified, I will check for links to anchors in the main list and redirect them to the sub-pages as appropriate before replacing the list with a link to a full transclusion of all the sub-pages. There will be no broken links.
• There will be no loss of the ability to see the rules as a whole, a concern that several contributors identified. The full transclusion page will serve the same function as the present list, showing all the rules for all the countries, but will be very large. I will also provide regional transclusion lists (Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe, Oceania). If anyone wants finer-grained transclusion pages like Caribbean countries, former Soviet Union, Middle East, etc., that can be done very easily.
• The infobox listing the sub-pages will go at the top of the main page, and I will repeat the navbox version of the same list at the foot, so it will be very easy to skip to a sub-page. Thanks to User:Ruslik0 for pointing out the problem with using the navbox template for this list, which would not show on mobiles. Thanks to User:Retired electrician for pointing out that a larger font will be more readable. These problems have been fixed.

I expect to go slowly at first, then speed up as natural patterns emerge. I will report any issues and milestones here. Nothing will be done that cannot be undone. Thanks again for all the feedback. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• The first stage is done, with a complete set of individual sub-pages created. The list in Commons:Copyright rules by territory has been replaced with a link to the transclusion page Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list. PD-type templates with links to the old sub-sections have been updated to point to the new sub-pages. Most of the remaining inbound links are from old deletion discussions or archived pages, which I will leave. Next step is a series of clean-up passes to improve linkage and quality. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Files within Category:Wikimedia in Brazil GLAM initiative with Arquivo Nacional

Moved from Commons:Village pump#Files within Category:Wikimedia in Brazil GLAM initiative with Arquivo Nacional

A Wikimedia "users group in Brazil" (@Joalpe: , @Rodrigo.Argenton: and perhaps more) has uploaded a lot of files within this category while refering to a GLAM partnership with the Arquivo Nacional. These files are tagged with {{Arquivo Nacional PD-license}} and are supposed to come from Correio da Manhã, a local Rio de Janeiro newspaper. I've challenged the validity of these PD claims (some of them were from Getty) or their origin (not from Correio da Manhã but Italian, French, American, Cuban works instead). The most obvious cases of non-Brazilian works being :

• File:Adolf Hitler 1, sem data.tif Getty;
• File:Adolf Hitler 2, sem data.tif Getty;
• File:Adolf Hitler 3, sem data.tif;
• File:Adolf Hitler discursa no Parlamento alemão.tif Getty;

but fortunatelly these German works are PD in their respective source countries.

I've found out too that File:Stefan Zweig, Fundo Correio da Manhã - 2.tif was again a PD Getty Image and when I've modified the File description with the correct link to Getty Rodrigo.Argenton reverted me (as well as Administrator @Magog the Ogre: 's {{No license since}} here) but Rodrigo.Argenton is used to revert other user's deletion templates despite warnings on his Talk page. He "archives" it a lot too.

Some other suspicious pictures are (as far as I know persons pictured never visited Brazil) :

• File:Alain Resnais (1965).tif;
• File:Alberto Sordi (1960).tif;
• File:Alexander Calder, escultor (1959).tiff;
• File:Alida Valli, Fundo Correio da Manhã.tif;
• File:Ann Sothern, sem data.tif;
• File:Anna Magnani e Anthony Quinn.tif;
• File:Anouk Aimée, sem data.tif;
• File:Antonioni em um dos sets de Zabriskie Point, sem data.tif, etc.
• File:Betty Blythe, Hank Mann, Susan Cabot, Mack Sennett e Peggie Castle.tif;
• File:Bárbara Stanwyck (1941).tif;
• File:Charles Trenet (1955).tif;
• File:Darius Milhaud, sem data.tif;
• File:Fernand Leger (1955).tif;
• File:Fidel Castro, 1972.tif (1972, sic);
• File:George Sanders, sem data.tif;
• File:Giuletta Masina.tif;
• File:Hans Steiner (1940).tif;
• File:Helmut Schmidt (1972).tif;
• File:Henri Langlois (1965).tif;
• File:Jerry Lewis (1969).tif;
• File:Jean-louis Trintignant (1969).tif;
• File:Josef Von Sternberg, Fundo Correio da Manhã.tif;
• File:Joseph Paul Goebbels (1936).tif;
• File:Joseph Paul Goebbels, sem data.tif;
• File:Le Corbusier (1965).tif;
• File:Marcel Marceau (1961).tif;

So may someone ask this "users group in Brazil" to verify the files they've uploaded already, to add the missing informations in the File description (Names of photographers and locations are always missing, sometimes dates too and when mentionned they are often false) so we can correctly review them since these user's skills are to be discussed. Side note : may an Administrator warn @Rodrigo.Argenton: to better calm down and close his Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Patrick Rogel. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The photographs of Hitler are undated and have no original source mentioned, not even the source country. Just examining these alone, could you explain your claim that they are Public Domain in Germany (on the presumption that they were taken in Germany)?

@Fæ: Please see above. The fact that they have no source and no location is indeed the issue... Besides these "Hitler files supposed to have been shot by a Rio de Janeiro newspaper" are not the current issue since they're PD. It's the ever expanding other list which is. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The trouble is, even these WW2 photographs are probably not public domain. I have yet to see any valid rationale that makes them public domain in Germany. The best case is that the Bundesarchive own the rights and can prove it, but even then the photographs are not public domain, just on a suitable free license from the archive that owns the rights. --Fæ (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, if they were not subject to a current dispute, I would have raised a DR based on my 20 second review. --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have been looking through Category:Reichstag sessions 1933-1945. Unfortunately the licences are all bunk. Claims relying on being taken in countries other than Germany (UK, Brazil) are bunk. Claims that any could be CC-BY-SA with a required attribution to the Bundesarchiv are bunk (revising my viewpoint on this one!). I'll raise these specifically at COM:VP/C as those with an awareness of German copyright law will understand that the claim that these must be PD because the author appears to be "unknown" by the uploaders does not fly... Now raised at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Photographs_of_Hitler_in_the_Reichstag. --Fæ (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Just because a photo is taken in Germany doesn't mean that it's a work of Germany; what matters for international law and the rule of the shorter term is where it was first published. It makes things more complex, but certainly the UK or Brazil may be the country of first publication for a photo of the Reichstag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be some sort of affirmative statement - even something that's the equivalent of the US LOC's "no known restrictions exist" would be something. But none of the Brazil images seem to have an actual source. I don't necessarily believe Getty when they claim copyright - they claim copyright on anything and everything they get their hands on, even things like George Washington's official portrait. While I'd be perfectly willing to believe the Brazilian National Archives if they tell us that they have done the research and the image is definitely PD, I'm not even seeing any specific claim - the license tag seems patently unrelated. For Nazi photos in particular, many of them are PD in the US because we seized their copyrights, but Germany doesn't recognize that - they like enforcing copyright to prevent people from publishing (and idolizing) them. --B (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete all allegedly PD photos without information on photographer names and lifetimes, countries shot in, years shot in, and years published in, sufficient to verify their PD licenses, and sanction uploaders who continue to upload allegedly PD photos without such information. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wikimedia in Brazil GLAM initiative with Arquivo Nacional - Missing license.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)