Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/10

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

Does this logo of a Japanese company fall below the threshold of originality?

Is this logo of Cover Corp. (or this alternative version) eligible for copyright or is the gradient in the logo enough for it to be copyright-able under Japanese law? — Jeluang Terluang (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

They look on par with File:Cup Noodles.jpg, if not simpler. I think it's below TOO.--Roy17 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. — Jeluang Terluang (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia page for my company (large enough that most folks in North America know it), but the images and brand logo are outdated. I would like to upload new images and our new logo, which is copyrighted. As wiki does not permit copyrighted material to be uploaded, how do I go about uploading an image that I (or, at least my company) own? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.240.15.14 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The easiest way would be to grant a free licence for the logo at your official website, e.g. Creative Commons by Attribution 4.0. Afterwards you may upload the logo over here including a link to your website where the free licence grant is stated. This will allow us to verify the licence. Alternatively you may upload the file immediately and send an email with a permission as explained in COM:OTRS. When you have sent such a mail, please add a text string {{subst:OP}} to the file page here at Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@208.240.15.14: If you wish to irrevocably grant a free license to your logo, such as {{CC-BY-4.0}}, follow the instructions at Commons:Email templates and COM:OTRS. This would mean that anyone can use your logo for any purpose, even commercially, without further permission or any compensation to your company, provided they follow the terms of the license. You can add the template {{Trademarked}} as well. Alternatively, if you wish for your logo to remain non-free but to be used in the Wikipedia article of your company, it may satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content criteria and could be uploaded locally. See for example en:File:HarmonyGoldLogo.jpg and Non-free image guidelines. Note that while English-language Wikipedia allows non-free content in limited circumstances, Commons does not, and other language Wikipedias may have different non-free use policies. --Animalparty (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsure if my file is allowed on Commons

I've read out a Wikipedia article but it has quotations in it. Two of the longer quotations can be found on the English Wikipedia here - link is to the section concerned. If the file should be speedily deleted from Commons it is this file. Thank you for your assistance. This is my first spoken article and I am trying to find my feet. -- Bodnotbod (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the extent of the total article, I'd like to think that the two quotations from Staniforth qualify for de minimis. I.e. the overall portion of non-free text within the freely licensed Wikipedia content of the audio file is acceptable. I'd be happy though to see comments from other users. De728631 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I too shall await further comment. --Bodnotbod (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump twitter

Hi. Are photos from Trumps @realdonaldtrump PD-US-Gov? This is a private account not an official one. This pic is claimed as PD File:Trump Greets Americans Released by North Korea on realDonald Trump account v3.jpg. TIA Gbawden (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Images used on Trump's twitter stream are not Whitehouse or US-Gov publications unless stated to be so, or linked to sources which state that; as evidenced by recent copyright take-downs on that same twitterstream. This image may be useful, but should be removed unless copyright status can be verified. It may well be that the original video is propaganda published by the Whitehouse, it's probably worth researching their publications for the same day. --Fæ (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sonia_Sidhu_-_Member_of_Parliament_for_Brampton_South,_Canada.jpg

Uploader of this photograph of a printed photo is claiming that the original author gifted the contents in printed format and allowed to contribute it elsewhere. Is there a process that can verify this claim or should this file be marked for removal?

Edit: I've asked the uploader if they can contact the original author and get an OTRS release. // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I'm not sure how to do a mass deletion of images by one editor, but I've checked two of the photos uploaded by พนาพล พิชิตำพรพนา (talk · contribs) and have found them in online publications. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You can start a mass deletion request. Ruslik (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: I see this has been done, and he's been blocked on Wikipedia. Thanks for you help! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

My company, Carousell, has a wiki page. Recently we updated our logo and I've been asked to update the logo on the wiki page. Not sure if I did it correctly but I got a message saying that the logo lacks copyright info and may be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.129.2.73 (talk • contribs) 02:32, October 6, 2019 (UTC) (UTC)

@180.129.2.73: I don't see any uploads for your IP address. Were you logged in to an account when you uploaded the file? Could you provide a link to it? – BMacZero (🗩) 01:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi IP 180.129.2.73. Is File:Carousell Logo 2019.png the file you uploaded? If it is, then you're going to need to follow the instructions given in Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? in order for Commons to verify that the copyright holder of the logo has given their consent for the file to be uploaded to Commons under a free license that Commons accepts per Commons:Licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

scan from a periodical

Hi. I added several scan from a periodical with a permition from the publisher to use and publish this scan with no ristrictions. Now it has been marked for deletion because it is from a magazine with copyrights. If the publisher, as the owner of the copyrights gave his permition, how do I make sure the imigages will not be deleted? thanks Key maker (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, The problem is that you did not provide evidence that the copyright owner offers those works under the CC license you added. Please see the procedure on the page Commons:OTRS for a way for copyright owners to confirm free licenses. Another way is that they could add a license publicly visible on their official website. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Julia Ratcliffe Gold Coast.jpg

Don't see any free license. Seems to be a professional photographer: https://www.facebook.com/alishalovrichphotography/, https://www.alishalovrich.com/ 31.201.130.50 09:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This may need an OTRS confirmation. Ruslik (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"What Katy Did" illustrations

I have here a copy of Susan Coolidge's "What Katy Did", published by Thomas Nelson and Sons, with eight illustrations. I'm hoping to upload the illustrations. However, figuring out the copyright status is tying me in knots.

The book bears no publication date or copyright message, but it has a Sunday School prize bookplate with the date December 31st 1915.

The paintings are not credited in the book at all. But they are signed "Elsie Anna Wood" in the corner. According to a blog entry I found, Elsie Anna Wood died in 1978.[1].

If this was a modern book, I would have assumed the paintings were works for hire (and so the copyright would belong to the publisher). But I have no idea about how that would work if the book was printed in 1915 or shortly before. Does this affect the expiry date?

I am confused. Marnanel (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marnanel: Assuming that first publication was in the UK, being a work for hire or otherwise doesn't really matter. Copyright expiry is based on when the author died, and the author is the person who actually created the work. So in this case, copyright will expire on 2049-01-01. --bjh21 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
In the USA it is in pubic domain as published before 1924: {{Pd-1923}}. In the UK the situation is more complicated. Ruslik (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
But AIUI this has to be in the public domain in both the US and the UK to be on Commons. Right? Marnanel (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
That's right, it needs to be PD in the United States and in the country of origin, which is not the case here. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the permission for this video game compatible for use in Wikimedia?

In the press kit for Catlateral Damage, the developer explicitly allow contents of the video game to be used even for commercial purposes. Does this allow the screenshots of the game to be hosted here? — Jeluang Terluang (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, It think you may. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jeluang Terluang and Ruslik0: Are you referring to the Monetization Permission section of the presskit? I don't think that's sufficient for Commons. As a video game developer, I can tell you that a lot of video games provide almost identical permissions and they are specifically intended to allow streamers and YouTube users to share videos of gameplay and monetize them with ads. The permission says nothing about reuse for purposes other than video streaming, or about derivative works. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
"Chris Chung allows for the contents of Catlateral Damage to be published through video broadcasting services for any commercial or non-commercial purposes". This is nothing specific about streaming here. This is an express permission to use the videos and images for any purpose including making derivatives. Ruslik (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
"video" and "video broadcasting services" seem to be limiting factors. It doesn't even give a right to display a static image on Wikipedia, for example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Heather O'Rourke crypt 2.jpg

I'm wondering if this file is OK as licensed. The Flickr license seems fine for the photo, but I wondering about the plaque itself. It seems kind of like the frame on a painting and files of framed paintings seem to be questionable when it comes to Commons COM:FRAME. If this was simply taken straight on and not at an angle, then perhaps the frame could be cropped out, but the inscription might still be considered a COM:CB#Engraving even though it's just text. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the point of the photo is to show the plaque frame. Whatever decoration happens to be there seems incidental to me. Per Ets-Hokins, a photo would have to be focusing on the decoration in particular to really be derivative. COM:FRAME is when we don't have a license for the photo itself, and want to use PD-Art. It is also nothing like a graphic engraving. The content of the plaque is just text, and not copyrightable text either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Understand. Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Work of author born 1848 but year of death unknown

Hello, this is an inquiry into File:Thaïs - English translation.djvu which is an UK English translation of a French text, published in 1909. The original author died in 1924, and the translator was born in 1848 according to numerous authority files including the BNF, but his date of death is so far unknown. Assuming he lived to be 100, he died in 1948, and therefore the work is in the public domain in the UK. Will the community consider this to be "safe" even though it is outside the bounds of Template:PD-old-assumed?

If not, please give me a chance to migrate it to Wikisource before you speedy-delete it.

Phillipedison1891 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If there are other works from the same author more than 120 years ago, there is some logic in that. Sort of odd to keep some works of an author and delete others when we know they have the same copyright expiration date. I would probably just use PD-old-assumed, since I see works of his at least back to 1890, and possibly 1871. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and added a custom notice based on Template:PD-old-assumed to the file. Will wait for more community input before converting it to a template. Seems to me like living to 100 years is even less probable than living to 50 years after publication. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: the basis for PD-old-assumed is the assumption that the author lived for another 50 years after creating a work. Which would be rather unlikely in this case. In PMA+50 countries for example, PD-old-assumed is 100 years. @Phillipedison1891: I've written an essay dedicated to this subject: User:Alexis Jazz/Assuming worst case copyright. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
You might want to ask @Billinghurst: about it; he's dug for a lot of author information including full names and initials on Wikisource, and been quite successful about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
If Commons wants it off, then it is safer to just move it to enWS. Makes no particular difference to us, we will just set a year at when we can bring it back, based on Commons criteria.

Wrt the author, it is a reasonably common name, and if they are living in France, then finding French deaths of Englishmen or Scotsmen there is not the easiest thing to do. I will put the negative search results on Douglas's author talk page at enWS.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Seygall at a photshoot.png

If someone could check if this is properly licensed, I'm sceptical since it seems to have been taken from her instagram. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Image from collection

I recently uploaded a file from a particular collection.[2] Shortly after uploading it, I checked out the permissions for the collection more thoroughly, and I'm a bit confused as to what to do. So far as Wikipedia's rules are concerned, I think this image has to be in the public domain, because it was made in California in about 1853 by an artist who died in 1878. However, when I looked at the collection permissions, it says:

Restrictions: Copyright has not been assigned to The Bancroft Library. All requests for permission to publish pictorial materials must be submitted in writing to the Curator of Pictorial Collections. Permission for publication is given on behalf of The Bancroft Library as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained by the reader.
Availability: Restricted originals. Use digital facsimiles or selected viewing prints only. Use of originals only by permission of the Curator of Pictorial Collections, The Bancroft Library.[3]

I'm not sure what "use digital facsimiles or selected viewing prints only" means as opposed to "use of originals only by permissions of the curator", but regardless, I'm not sure whether I should bother to ask permission at all. Any suggestions on what I should do at this point? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

My reading of the notice suggests that it applies only to those items that are still under copyright. In this case the copyright has expired so copies of it are in the public domain. In other words, you do not need to do anything except possibly to note the location of the original. Martinvl (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Need assistance with migrating possibly non-free image to the English Wikipedia

The file I would like to migrate is File:UKMA logo (upright Roman m).jpg which I uploaded to Commons in 2014 but that was before I realised the image has to be free in its home country as well as the United States. I now belive it to be non-free in the United Kingdom where the threshold of originality is low. Tk420 (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tk420: Even in the UK there is no possible way that that logo would qualify for copyright. The UK Metric Association could not possibly claim that they were the first people to ever put a lowercase sans-serif m on a blue background. It's safe to host that on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure? I know logos containing only simple shapes and text are ineligible for copyright in the United States, where Wikimedia's servers are based, but the threshold of originality in the UK is much lower being a common law country. An example of the different thresholds is the logo of Republic (political organisation) (see: [4]. Another example is the BBFC's 1980s-2002 film rating logos which are ineligible in the US but contain the copyright symbol (see: [5]). Tk420 (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tk420: While the threshold of originality in the UK is definitely lower, it does exist. Thousands, perhaps millions, of lowercase sans-serif letter m's have been published on blue backgrounds. If you could claim a copyright on plain letters on plain backgrounds, it would cause legal chaos. Not to mention that it would be trivial to find prior work invalidating the copyright. Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
On page 169 of the book The UK after Brexit, the authors wrote "Of particular significance is the EU originality threshold of ‘author’s own intellectual creation’ - as put forward by the CJEU in Infopaq as the standard for all copyright works. Since that 2009 case, this test has displaced the traditional UK standard of ‘skill, labour and judgment’ (though the impact of this in practice has not been dramatic)". This suggests that unless the law in the UK changes after BREXIT, we are quite safe in assuming that this logo is free from copyright restrictions. I noticed furthermore that on twitter, the UKMA uses a "m" in a circle rather than in a square. Martinvl (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Central Bank of Russia licensing requirements

Are the following license requirements compatible with Commons?

Все материалы сайта Банка России могут быть воспроизведены в любых средствах массовой информации, на серверах сети Интернет или на любых иных носителях без каких-либо ограничений по объему и срокам публикации. Это разрешение в равной степени распространяется на газеты, журналы, радиостанции, телеканалы, сайты и страницы сети Интернет. Единственным условием перепечатки и ретрансляции является ссылка на первоисточник.

Machine translation:

All materials of the Bank of Russia website can be reproduced in any media, on Internet servers or on any other media without any restrictions on the volume and timing of publication. This permission applies equally to newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television channels, websites and Internet pages. The only condition for reprinting and relaying is a link to the source.

Note that this affects whether or not we keep several hundred images. (Current deletion discussion here.) Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The linking requirement is mostly just a simple attribution requirement, I think, which ought be possible to fulfill by a source link on the description page. I'm more concerned that those terms do not mention modification, which, depending on the nuance lost in the machine translation, would in effect mean a -ND limitation. --Xover (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The consent of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation to use photo in Wikipedia is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the Central Bank is aware of the use of these photos in Wikipedia, but has never made a claim to Wikipedia. I am can write a letter to the Central Bank to confirm the consent, but I do not understand what other permission you need to ask in addition to those that are already directly listed on the website of the Central Bank. --Mauser98k (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Mauser98k: It sounds like the consent that is needed is: (1) consent to make changes to the images, and to distribute such derivative works, and (2) consent to use the images commercially. It would be ideal if the CBR could adopt a Creative Commons license as http://kremlin.ru and http://government.ru have done. Kaldari (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such license (also know as old-kremlin.ru-like license) was deprecated on Commons twelve years ago. Moreover at least two years ago CBR had deprecated commercial usage. Alex Spade (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

To the Central Bank of the Russian Federation sent letter with a request to indicate on the website the license of "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". Please do not delete images of coins until receive a response CBR.--Mauser98k (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Would a transliteration count as being creative enough to be copyrighted?

Hi, guys! I found a 1982 modern Turkish transliteration of the Ottoman National Constitution of 1876. https://anayasa.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/1876/1876ilkmetinler/1876-ilkhal-turkce.pdf - The original Ottoman document is here: https://anayasa.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/1876/1876ilkmetinler/1876-ilkhal-osmanlica.pdf and is uploaded to Category:Ottoman constitution of 1876

I believe this is not a translation into the grammar and vocabulary of modern Turkish, but instead is just Ottoman Turkish transliterated into (written in) latin Turkish characters. If the latter is the case, would this be copyrighted under US and/or Turkish laws?

@Meisam: , if you wish to provide guidance, please do so! WhisperToMe (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

For the particular case of Turkey, it sounds like laws etc. are not protected by copyright (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Turkey#Not Protected). And since it sounds like it is an official translation/transliteration, it should be {{PD-EdictGov}} for the U.S. as well. For the more general question, it is interesting -- I would imagine for most things, the "rules" of transliteration are pretty obvious so there wouldn't be any creativity (especially if it can be automated). If there is a large diversity of possible transliterations, it may get more interesting. Although usually I would imagine it would be applying the same set of "rules" everywhere, not making different decisions word-by-word, which is where the creativity aspect of translation usually comes in. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! It's uploaded WhisperToMe (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright statues of treaties as presented in the United Nations Treaty Series

The UN isn’t great at clarifying the copyright status of the works it creates. The basis for making a claim that a UN work is in the public domain is ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, but as the UN itself noted in 2016 (p. 21) that policy was created during the ‘paper-age’ and plenty of grey areas exist.

My problem concerns the copyright status of treaties. The treaty texts themselves are in the public domain according to the UN’s own FAQ, and presumably ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 sec I(2)(a)–(b), but the UN FAQ goes on to say that ‘the online UN Treaty Collection is proprietary and cannot be reproduced, translated, distributed, sold or otherwise used without a prior written permission.’

The plain reading of this in my view, is that the UNTC database is proprietary and one cannot, say, mirror the whole thing, but it doesn’t clarify the copyright status of the United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS), the print collection of treaties published by the UN, which is available in PDF format on the UNTC website.

The series itself pretty much consists only of the treaty texts, with minor editorial things like footnotes stating dates of deposit, references to other UN documents and so on. So going by the FAQ, and also ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 sec I(2)(b) one could argue that the UNTS itself is public domain.

The problem is that another section of ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, sec I(3), states that copyright protection will be sought for ‘recurrent publications’, which does suggest that the UNTS is copyright protected. Newer volumes of the UNTS, such as the ones from 2013, contain a ‘(c) all rights reserved’ copyright message, but it’s not unheard of that an organization will post a boilerplate copyright notice even though they have specific carveouts for that particular type of media, and older volumes, such as 610 (1967), don’t have a copyright notice.

tl;dr: Is the United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS) in the public domain by virtue of the UN’s own policies, or, if it is copyrighted, can the publication of a treaty text via a scan of the UNTS be justified since the treaty text itself is public domain and the additions in the UNTS are de minimis?

For context, the document I want to upload and use on Wikisource is a scan of is the UNTS print of the Outer Space Treaty. InsaneHacker (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Treaties is one of the forms of government edicts and should be treated as such. It means that in the USA, for instance, they are in public domain including any compilation of them. On the other hand the "sui generis" database copyright does not exist in USA either. So, summarizing as the UN is located in the USA, the laws of USA should apply and therefore those treaties as published by the UN are in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I am also not sure that international treaties can be considered as works that UN created. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. About the only thing they would have is a database right, or selection/arrangement copyright, over the collection as a whole. I can't imagine they would have any rights at all over individual treaties, which are PD-EdictGov for the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Chapelle du Rosaire (Vence)

Are these pics all to be deleted (except maybe the cross)? In France there's no freedom of panorama.--Carnby (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

From architectural point of view the chapel is simple and unoriginal. On the other hand the painting occupies only a small portion of the image to qualify as "de minimis". Ruslik (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there a template for unoriginal architecture (other than {{NoFoP-France}})?--Carnby (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm biased by American law, but in the US, architectural case law is all about mass-produced "simple and unoriginal" homes that had nonetheless had modern designers defending their rights. I hesitate to say that any building is "simple and unoriginal" anymore than I would say a short story or painting is "simple and unoriginal"; the level of creativity demanded is low enough that virtually all works in that field that aren't simple copies will pass it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thus {{NoFoP-France}} applies also to the chapel? But remember that "works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected".--Carnby (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
"Remember that"? I don't know where that comes from, if it applies to France, or if it is correctly translated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I took it here.--Carnby (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

File: Irongate TMS.png

Hi There,

I'm trying to upload the logo for the company that I work for, for use in my Draft, which is inside my userspace on Wikipedia, before it is submitted for review. The logo is copyrighted, but I can get an email permission from my boss, the copyright holder (as Director of the company). How do I correctly change the 'license' on the photo to reflect this.

With thanks, Dinszy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinszy (talk • contribs) 14:59, October 12, 2019 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi Dinszy. Please take a look at Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? for information on what you and your boss need to do. I also don't think that File:Irongate TMS Logo.png (if that's the file you're talking about) is even close to being {{PD-textlogo}} per COM:TOO United Kingdom and that it's wise for you to claim it as such. By doing so, you're basically stating that your company's logo is so simple that it's not copyrightable which means anyone anywhere in the world could basically download it from Commons and use it anyway they please without getting permission from your company.
I also suggest you take a look at en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure as well if you're trying to create a Wikipedia article about the company you work for. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dinszy: I agree with Marchjuly above that it is unwise for you to claim that file as {{PD-textlogo}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Is UK TOO this crap?

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brookes logo black.jpg

UK TOO is crap, but is it this crap? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I believe {{Textlogo}} can apply. Nothing special, text in a simple typeface. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Woodhead Tunnel book

Do we agree with [6] that "the work was covered by Crown Copyright and therefore entered the Public Domain on 1 January 2005", and so can be uploaded to Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't. The British Transport Commission is described by the Transport Act 1947 as "a body corporate with perpetual succession", which I think means it wasn't part of the Crown, so its employees' works weren't subject to Crown copyright. British Railways was the Railway Executive of BTC, so I'd expect it to inherit BTC's status, though I haven't found any explicit statement of this in the Act. --bjh21 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Dana Plato's official death certificate.jpg

Even though this is only part of a death certificate, it seems very unlikely that the uploader is actually the copyright holder. Moreover, I'm not sure whether documents such as this (i.e. basically "blank" forms which can be completed as needed) are eligible for copyright protection by the municipal government offices that create them or make them available them for use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Blank forms are PD-ineligible, correct. Per 37 CFR 202.1: Blank forms, such as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in themselves convey information. Think this would be in that area, and doubt adding the factual information changes anything. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks checking on this Carl Lindberg. It can't be a CC license then if it's just a slavish copy then, right? I don't think watermark-like contact info the uploader added to the bottom of the image is allowed as well per COM:WATERMARK. Would it be OK to relicense the file as {{PD-ineligible}} and crop out the contact info? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Probably, unless they are claiming copyright on the paragraph at the bottom, which would be more appropriate in the image description. Don't think we should keep someone's email address like that at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the bottom paragraph can absolutely be omitted, as it has little to no educational use as a visual aid. One might consider omitting the social security number as well: while in this case the subject is deceased, non-public primary sources with personal information should be scrutinized with extra care. Commons is not a tabloid. --Animalparty (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg and Animalparty: The editor who uploaded the file hasn't edited (at least not with the same account) since the end of 2008, and they only uploaded one other file. I could ask someone at COM:GL/P to remove the contact info and black out the social security number, and then convert the licensing to "PD-ineligible"; however, the older version would still be visible, wouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, unless someone deletes the old revision specifically. Still better than having it front and center. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

 Info Per ticket:2019100710005197, Oklahoma State Department of Health says that Oklahoma records and its information are confidential and “should not be displayed on the public domain. Such disclosures to the website and on the website are unlawful under 63 OS § 1-323”. Bencemac (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, yes, per that law they say "death certificates shall be considered publicly available records seventy-five years after death". Before then, they are illegal (in Oklahoma). On the other hand, this is only a crop of the death certificate, which displays pretty much only information which was publicly known before. So, seems likely that enough information has been omitted to avoid the core reason for that law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac and Clindberg: The file was cropped and the social security number was obscured by someone at COM:GL/P. The older revision was then "hidden" by an Commons administrator, but it can still be seen by administrators, oversighters, etc. Perhaps it needs to go as well, but an oversighter will have to do that. As for the legality of the file, I wasn't aware of the Oklahoma law and perhaps the uploader wasn't aware of it as well (assuming good faith here). I only came across the file after it had been added to en:Dana Plato and wasn't unsure about it's licensing. It has since been removed from that article by another editor for different "encyclopedic reasons", but it's still being used in fr:Dana Plato. If there's a "legal" reason the file cannot be kept, then I have no problem with it being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
My reading of the relevant Oklahoma statue is that the State of Oklahoma will not allow anybody to inspect the death registers or to take copies from the register, unless they are authorised to do so. This is quite common in many jurisdictions. However, in many jurisdictions there is nothing stopping the person who registered the birth or death from publishing their copy of the extract from the register. This suggests that if a state offical facilitated the copying of this record, then that state official is breaking the law and could face criminal sanctions. If however ther copy that was issued to the informant was published, no law has been broken (assuming of course that copyright has not been breached). Martinvl (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-license CC0 to WTFPL

I have a number of files I let into the public domain using the CC0 license. Is it allowed to re-license them with {{WTFPL}} which is also a public domain license? Like here. Thanks. Please tag upon reply. Gikü (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Gikü. Probably not, no. WTFPL requires that reusers change the name of the media, and this is not required by CC0, which simply waives all rights entirely to the greatest extent possible. In an nutshell, the content cannot be legitimately relicensed under any terms that are more restrictive than the original, no matter how minor those restrictions might be. Besides that, even if we could, I'm not entirely sure why we would want to relicense them under WTFPL, which seems all together less professional and comprehensive than CC0. GMGtalk 12:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Thank you for replying. But where did you get this from exactly? "requires that reusers change the name of the media". I was assuming this is the license terms, and it says "0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO" (sorry for verbatim). And, just to assure you and other participants in the discussion, I am not intending to spoof Commons licensing by starting this thread. Gikü (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gikü: Oh. Sorry. I misread. I need to drink more coffee. The renaming requirement is in reference to the text of the license itself, and not the media so licensed.
Still, the question remains why we would want to relicense the content under WTFPD in the first place. The description here also is a bit misleading, since it appears to imply the endorsement of the Free Software Foundation, while glossing over the fact that they explicitly don't recommend use of the license. Incidentally, it appears the license is not recommended by the Open Source Initiative either. It's also not clear that WTFPD couldn't be interpreted as waiving certain non-copyright related restrictions which are not necessarily waived by CC0.
We might be able to sort out whatever issues there may be, but we would need a compelling reason to do so. GMGtalk 13:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Gikü Yes you can! I had a similar problem with IRL stuff. You can add the {{WTFPL}} to your files but you must not remove the public domain license tag. Once you release something in PD(or any other license), it is Irrevocable. You own the file and it's totally fine to release a file under different licenses. For example: If you have a video you can license the 720p version with CC-BY-SA to attract customers and still sell the 4K version to make a profit (If anybody uses the 4K version without paying you, they can be sued). I hope it helps. PS: I AM NOT A LAWYER -- Eatcha (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Eatcha: Thanks! After I re-read Commons:Multi-licensing I got the part about Once you release something in PD(or any other license), it is Irrevocable – I was assuming that PD licenses are revocable when replacing with a similar license. I will go ahead and add {{WTFPL}} to desired own works instead of replacing the existing license. Best, --Gikü (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Eatcha: not even a wikilawyer I guess. COM:L: "Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I would say no. Since Commons accepts pretty much any wording for a declaration of free licensing when an author first uploads a file and issues a declaration, one may be under the impression that all declarations could be equivalent or even interchangeable. But they're not. The CC0 is a carefully worded statement, intended to be clear, undisputable, and which covers all cases, including a public domain waiver and a fallback free license. The WTFPL is a very ambiguous license statement and thus has potential for being the source of problems and disputes. Think of all it leaves in the dark. Superficially, it may look attractive and funny. But in this area, simplicity, good understanding and maximal freeness of the files come not with brevity but with clarity. The CC0 declaration states that both the public domain waiver and the fallback license are irrevocable. If by relicense you mean to remove the CC0 dedication and place only some license statement, it can't be done. If you mean to leave the CC0 and add an alternative license statement, it is incompatible in the jurisdictions where the CC0 public domain waiver applies, including on Commons, because it would be incompatible to attempt to reclaim copyright ownership through the WTFPL. In jurisdictions where the CC0 fallback license applies, adding a different license could cause confusion. In all cases, it would still be a very bad idea. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

New uploads with GFDL migration=relicense

I just noticed the license for File:York montage.png is {{GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers|migration=relicense}}. Considering this collage was created in 2018, relicensing is obviously impossible as the migration from GFDL to CC BY-SA 3.0 was a one-time event in 2009.

What to do when that happens? Simply change it to migration=redundant and add the CC license? Nominate for deletion? Ask the uploader? (I did, but uploaders may not always respond) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As it is a collage of CC BY-SA images, you can add this license. Ruslik (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

US Holocaust Museum

Commons is hosting content from https://www.ushmm.org, on the basis that media was published by Federal employees. Checking the website I can find no evidence that copyright would be PD for website photographs unless they are explicitly stated to be. Based on webarchive, there used to be a generic disclaimer about copyright, but this did not specifically release the website content under a CC license, though that impression is given in some uploads like File:Massdeportations.gif. Does anyone have more information to hand? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Related:

--Fæ (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

On this topic, the information at Commons:Problematic_sources#United_States_Holocaust_Memorial_Museum may be relevant. (With regard to the page about problematic sources, an issue worth considering is whether the information about the USHMM and copyright is still accurate (as opposed to being outdated.) There is also the issue as to whether the information can be improved or made more clear.) --Gazebo (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It provides a useful summary and a good place for any new information to be added. --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Related:

Useful Search link. --Fæ (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Gay Play Stacker Building Set game

Can anyone work out a date for the "Gay Play Stacker Building Set" game? There are 3 photographs uploaded from the Auckland Museum, and so long as the game was made before 1969, we can apply {{PD-New Zealand}}. The Company was "Falcon Plastics" which started in NZ back in 1935 and the game very much appears to be using 1950s design. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Lt. Roberts Middle Eastern Magic Lantern Slides Collection

Hey all. What is copyright of "Lt. Roberts Middle Eastern Magic Lantern Slides Collection"? can be see here. Can i upload them?--Ruwaym (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I just uploaded one, File:Portrait of Abdullah bin Hussein.png. --Ruwaym (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
According to the source, the images were collected by Roberts from various sources ("some of the pictures most likely were postcards or reproductions" ... "The collection was probably assembled for a lecture"). It can be assumed that they were published before 1924 and are in the public domain in the United States (PD-US-expired). However, the policy of Commons requires also free status of the images in the countries of origin. So, a research is required on a case by case basis for each image to find its country of first publication and its photographer. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ruwaym: As a courtesy, at File:Portrait of Abdullah bin Hussein.png I've replaced the static image URL with a link to the page hosting/describing the image so that the image provenance can be more fully evaluated, e.g. https://www.wdl.org/en/item/18818, not https://dl.wdl.org/18818.png. --Animalparty (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
--Animalparty Oh, thank you. I actually forgot that. That collection is about politics, while i am into literature. I hope i can find some free pictures of those poets who i created their articles in ArWiki. Arabs are poet people! --Ruwaym (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Amazing World of Gumball

I'm not sure, but I think many character images of The Amazing World of Gumball may be copyrighted, and shouldn't be on Commons:

I don't want to open a deletion request without knowing their license. Thanks. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 19:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tinker Bell: These are definitely copyrighted. I have nominated them for speedy deletion. GMGtalk 19:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Picture taken by me of text in book

I would like to upload an image that was taken by me of some text from a book (taken with my camera phone of a part of the page). Does this qualify as an image created by me, or would copyright constrictions apply? Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of the book would probably apply, depending on the book and the text. See Commons:Derivative works. --ghouston (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

copy right information plz

  1. My cemara phone, taken by photo x person. Who is the copy right Holder.?. I am upload photo in commons?. Which copyright apply?.
  2. one group photo. I am part this group.

Not selfi, photo taken by x person. Who is the upload commons?. who is copyright holder. ?. --Lokesha kunchadka (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lokesha kunchadka: , x (the photographer) is the person who determines the copyright. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
my device used in taken by photographer. I am upload commons?, or photographer upload commons?. Who is the copyright holder?. --Lokesha kunchadka (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@Lokesha kunchadka: The person who held the camera (or phone), composed the shot, and pushed "click" to take the photograph is the copyright holder (except in very rare cases where you hire someone to take a photo, with a contract stating who owns copyright, or you compose all elements of the shot before anyone pushes a button). It doesn't matter if it was your camera or theirs. If you want to upload a picture taken by someone else, you should have them upload it with their own account, using {{Own}} for the source. If you upload a photo taken by someone else, you need to have evidence of permission: see Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. --Animalparty (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Images of three-dimensional art

I'm trying to follow the Hirtle chart, but I can't reconcile it with Commons tags. I want to upload four photographs of three-dimensional artwork taken in 1915 in Italy by the artist herself, an Australian who died in 1948. The art was not put on display or otherwise photographed because it was left unfinished as a result of a dispute.

So far as I know, the four photographs were not published in the artist's lifetime, but they have been published within recent years on an art-gallery website in Australia. The images are PD in Italy. Are they PD in the US, and if so what is the correct US tag? {{PD-old-70}} needs a US tag. {{PD-art-70}} is for two-dimensional art and needs a US tag. {{PD-US}} is pre-1924 publication or lack of notice or renewal. Hoping someone can advise. SarahSV (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If the photos were first published after 2002, they'd be PD-US-unpublished. If the underlying artwork was unpublished, I don't think it would matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, thank you, that's extremely helpful. SarahSV (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, would you be able to advise about another image? It's the same artist, but this time it's a photograph of her, File:Dora Ohlfsen, 1908.gif, and again the issue is that I don't know what the right US tag is.

The photograph was taken in London in 1908 by a professional photographer, Mabel Shadwell Clerke, who died in 1923. I've searched through newspapers and I can't find this image anywhere (except published recently on Obituaries Australia and the Art Gallery of New South Wales website), which surprises me because the artist regularly gave interviews and images of herself to newspapers.

The artist did send the photograph to someone in November 1908; she signed the frame in this version: "With best wishes for the New Year, from Dora, Rome. 22.11.08". Does that count as "publication": taken by a professional photographer, then sent to a third party?

Or should I use {{PD-US-unpublished}} because I can't find examples of publication within the author's lifetime? SarahSV (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's a clearly correct answer, but it seems most probable that it's PD-1923 or PD-1996. Merely sending it to one person wouldn't be general publication, but it seems reasonable enough to assume it's PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, once again, thank you for the help. SarahSV (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Advertisement for Purple Pamphlet published by Johns Committee.jpg

I'm not sure this file is licensed correctly. I can't find any CC license on the source website, but it might possibly be OK as {{PD-FLGov}}. Can Commons keep this as is, a PD license or does it really need to be deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The report might have been public domain, but this ad wasn't put out by the government. This is a commercial publisher. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to know where it's from, but it looks PD-US-no notice, as advertisements needed their own copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Digital Cultural Heritage and Wikimedia Commons Licenses: Copyright or Copywrong?

New article at https://www.jcel-pub.org/jcel/article/view/9771 by Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Loyola University New Orleans. It concludes that

The results of this study show that, though rare, inaccuracies in rights statements for digital cultural heritage objects on WMC are usually the fault of the cultural heritage institutions using incorrect or misleading rights stat ements in their digital libraries and websites. Digital cultural heritage objects that are in the public domain should be clearly labeled as such to encourage their reuse, which is in line with their cultural heritage institutions’ missions.

Nemo 07:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I upload the source code of an image?

The images used here have attribution given to Dan Copsey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shallow_water_equations

However, he seems to have vanished from the internet. A long time ago, he had a personal website I somehow was able to find but can no longer even remember now. In that website, he had a Fortran program for generating those waves. I downloaded that source code long ago and yesterday I was able to mostly recreate the video in the article: https://mathstodon.xyz/@JordiGH/102998504788285261

Can I upload the source code? When Dan Copsey gave us permission to the image, did that include permission for the source code that generated that image? JordiGH (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No, you may not. The program code and images, that it generated, are not the same work and are protected by different copyright. Ruslik (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The source code may be placed in an open archive like https://zenodo.org/ which can rely on specific copyright exceptions to ensure preservation and the integrity of scholarly research, but it's not going to have a free license. Nemo 13:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How to edit this video so we can have it on commons ? Music is copyrighted , snippets from news etc.

Link : https://vimeo.com/237448075. -- Eatcha (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The snippets of news headlines are probably not an issue, as below the threshold of originality, and de minimis if not. Do you have additional info on the copyright/creator of the music (if it was created by the filmmakers it may be covered by the same CC-license). The audio track can be removed entirely when using Video2Commons, but then you'd lose the majority of the purpose of the video: people speaking. I'm not familiar with video editing software, but there is likely something available that can remove audio from parts of a video. --Animalparty (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Animalparty is that a problem if original author (http://www.the-humanlink.com/#/chapter/3 ) don't have a CC tag on their website. -Eatcha (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Wow that website is frustrating and hard to do anything but watch their video. Technically, I believe if the copyright owners published the video under the CC-BY license on Vimeo, then the license is valid even they previously published elsewhere under a different license. Creative Commons licenses are perpetual, i.e. non-revocable, per the legal code, although I am not a lawyer. --Animalparty (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

request for help with tagging image of Evelyn Wotherspoon Wainwright correctly

I recently uploaded an image of Evelyn Wotherspoon Wainwright to the commons. I got the image from the Library of Congress website. It is labeled there as having no known copyright restrictions. I added that text to the "other" section of the copyright info when uploading. Evidently this is not sufficient for the commons. Would someone help me get the image(s) tagged correctly? Thanks! Best regards, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: I've added PD templates. For Harris & Ewing Photographs from the Library of Congress you can add {{PD-Harris-Ewing}}, and optionally, {{PD-US}}. --Animalparty (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Brilliant Animalparty! You are the master of tags. Thanks so much. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright information

This image was copyright under in Indian copyright act apply. plz inform --Lokesha kunchadka (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How to deal with these likely copyright violations?

Hi, I noticed all the images uploaded by User:Farhadally are labelled "own work", but it looks to me unlikely. I don't have much experience with Commons and I'm not sure what I should do about it. I guess I should follow the procedure at Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request? Before I go and tag all the files with "delete" templates, I thought I'd ask whether that's the right approach. Or maybe they're obvious and I should just use "copyvio" tags? Or something else?

All eleven images are related to en:Namira Salim. I suppose it's possible that this user is actually Salim herself (or someone working for her), but even then it seems unlikely that she actually owns the copyrights to all these images, for example: File:Consulate Inauguration.jpg - see: [7].

Other examples, where the files have been published before they were uploaded to Commons:

Many of them appear on Salim's own website: http://spacetrust.com/founder/ though it's not clear if they preceded the uploads here, since archive.org's oldest copy of that page is a few months later. Anyway, I'd appreciate some advice about how to proceed, because I couldn't quite figure it out from reading the "help" pages. --IamNotU (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please help with copyright issues.

Hello, I have a problem. I had to upload 3 photos so I could use them on Czech Wikipedia for making a site about one Czech singer, writer, etc - Mr Vašák. I got all 3 photos tagged with 3 copyright warnings and now the photos are apparently facing imminent deletion. The thing is that they are on a few websites and facebook. But he personally sent them to me and he is the license owner... How should I tag them/ what should I do so I could use them? They are both public and I also have his approval. I was asked directly by him to do his page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tosseeh

Your help would be appreciated.. Thanks, Tosseeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosseeh (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Tosseeh: - I suggest that you visit Commons:OTRS. The procedure that needs to be followed is explained there. Martinvl (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Apollo Amsterdam TOO in NL

Does en:File:Correct_logo_Apollo_Amsterdam.png meet threshold of originality requirements under Netherlands copyright law? MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think not as it is only a letter "A" in a circle. Ruslik (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Using FOP to prominently display a copyrighted work

I'm looking at File:MikhailGelovani.jpg, and I feel like it's abusing freedom of panorama. Does German FoP really extend to such circumstances? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

What does it have to do with Germany? -- Asclepias (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Indeed the tombstone is located in Moscow, so German FOP is certainly not the right license. However I see no reason why FoP in general wouldn't apply - the tombstone is displayed outdoors in a public place. I think you're accidentally inserting some idea of de minimis into the idea of FoP. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
COM:FOP Russia doesn't apply to 2D objects. Moreover, some forms of FOP have requirements that you don't substitute for the commercial works of the item, so cropping to a photograph of a person using it to display as a photograph of a person would be right out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to interpret the question and "such circumstances". I can imagine at least four possible interpretations:
  • "If a magazine, distributed in Germany only, published an image like this one, would it be ok in Germany?" It seems that the answer is yes, assuming the current Commons summary of the German FoP exception is accurate. When a type of reproduction of a type of work is included in the FoP exception of the local law in the jurisdiction where the reproduction is published, then it's ok. That's the point of a FoP exception.
  • "Does the FoP exception of the copyright law of Germany extend and apply to the whole world?" No. German law applies to Germany, not in other countries.
  • "Can this image be hosted and displayed on Commons?" It depends on the copyright status of the included work. Unless there is evidence that it is free in the United States, then no.
  • "Hypothetically, if a work that is not free in the United States was in public display in Germany in circumstances that complied with the German FoP exception, could it be hosted and displayed on Commons?" Officially, it should not. In practice, it may be tolerated by some users. However, since it goes against the advice from Wikimedia, the uploader incurs the risks.
-- Asclepias (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Asclepias: there are countless files on Commons that rely on freedom of panorama in their source countries, for works of art such as sculptures, which are not covered by FoP in the United States. I believe these won't be deleted, if nominated, because the case law regarding country of origin for FoP is said to remain unsettled. --ghouston (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
For freely licensed photos of copyrighted artistic works that are covered by FoP in the artistic work's source country, there is the tag {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. Not all such images on Commons have been labeled with this tag. --Gazebo (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Query

Are murals that are in the US a copyvio? See Category:Midtown Miami, Florida. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: Freedom of panorama does not apply to 2D or 3D artwork in the United States, so unless there is some other reason for the artwork to be public domain such as a release by the author, it's probably a copyvio. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@BMacZero: Thank you :) 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Releasing an inherited image using a CC licence

I have inherited many slides from the 1950s and 1960s, taken by my father, which I've had digitized. I've just uploaded one: File:Taksim graffiti in Nicosia late 1950s.jpg. I would like to release it using the latest CC by SA licence, but I'm not sure what I've done is the right way to do it. The only templated licence I could find is {{PD-heirs}}, which releases the image into the public domain, which is not what I want to do. Is there a better way to indicate the licence? Mike Christie (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You can use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; that's what I was looking for. Mike Christie (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible photo of a 1930s Silex coffee pot hot plate

I am considering uploading a photo to Commons. The photo, which was taken by me, shows an electric hot plate that was on display in a museum in the US. According to the museum display, the hot plate dates back to the 1930s and the manufacturer was The Silex Company of Hartford, Connecticut, in the US. A low-resolution version of the photo is available for download over the next few days. The only possible copyright issue that I can think of is the top of the hot plate where a heating coil goes through a channel in some kind of fire-resistant material, with the channel perhaps following a path. However, that may not be an issue. If there are no copyright issues with the subject of the photo, I might upload a high-resolution version. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand what is your problem? It is not a work of art. The design is purely utilitarian. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects may be slightly confusing. For the design to be of concern it would need something like recognisable artwork or embossed cartoons on the surface, like you might see on children's decorated lunchboxes. Even then, 1930s US utilitarian objects (specifically not intended as artworks) are highly unlikely to be of any concern, you can upload with confidence that your actions are taken in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. The high-resolution photo is here. I understood the concept of the hot plate itself being a utilitarian object; however, I was not sure about the top surface where the heating element goes through a channel. For me, asking others on Commons about a possible upload is preferable to uploading an image to Commons and then finding out that there is a copyright problem with the uploaded image. --Gazebo (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Swiss TOO

Can someone to expand COM:TOO Switzerland? This link might help. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: I've expanded a bit (copy-pasted things from En-wiki). Feel free to tweak my changes. Masum Reza📞 05:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Facebook's standard license

Has there ever been a discussion as to whether Facebook's Terms of Service is compatible with COM:L? My understanding has always been that it's not which is why OTRS verification is required for images downloaded from Facebook and then re-uploaded to Commons. This came up during a discussion at User talk:Magog the Ogre#File:Naaz joshi at miss transqueen India.jpg about File:Naaz joshi at miss transqueen India.jpg (since deleted as copyvio). I've got no problem with this particular file being re-stored and further discussed as a DR if that's the proper thing to do, but it seems that there should be also some general discussion about Facebook images and whether they are released under a license that's OK for Commons as well. If such images are basically OK as is or even OK under certain conditions, then it would really help to have that written down somewhere to avoid any misunderstandings. Pinging Magog the Ogre, Masum Reza and Túrelio for input since they are connected to this file's deletion or the subsequent discussion regarding it, and also pinging the uploader Queenuniverse since they may be able to further clarify where the image came from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: File:ENECOMP 2013 - Hackeando a Wikipédia - 1º dia.jpg is acceptable because in the description on Facebook the author indicated the Creative Commons license. In your example, the question is if we assume the original author uploaded their photo to Facebook, downloaded it back from Facebook and uploaded it here, or if someone else downloaded it from Facebook and uploaded it here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
FB's ToS are irrelevant to Commons policy. As with any other image from any other site, what matters is if there is evidence that the image is under a free license issued by the copyright owner. The actual disagreement in the discussion on MtO's talk page is not about FB's ToS. It's about the level of credibility to assume about an uploader's statement of own work on Commons, when context puts a serious doubt on that statement and matches a modus operandi used for copyvios, and about the best method for dealing with the case. What distinguishes files copied from FB from files copied from other websites is not the ToS. It's that some FB files may be spotted on Commons because of the FB metadata, but it may be difficult to find where on FB the originals are. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz and Asclepias: Thanks for the clarification. The file was deleted as a copyvio, but before that it was tagged with {{Npd}}. Most likely both things happened because the claim of "own work" made by the uploader was not deemed very credible based upon prior problematic uploads/"own work" claims and statements made by the uploader on their user talk about photos not being protected under Indian copyright law. Since this appears to be a disagreement over the credibility of the uploader, then perhaps a DR would be a better way to resolve things, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I think so. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I am with Asclepias. A current example-case, which I had converted from speedy to DR, is here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wong Bik-Wan.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Android™.gif

I'm concerned about the collection of Android logos in this gif file. Apache License is claimed, but the license page says that it does not apply to most of brands and trademarks belonging to Google. Also, the brand guidelines mentions neither Creative Commons (except for Android robot logo) nor GFDL. Is there any chance that those logos (or screenshots) are free to use under any acceptable licenses? George Ho (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Some of them may be below the ToO. Ruslik (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

[China] works that are included in a cinematographic work or a work created in a way similar to cinematography and can be exploited separately

(official copies of the current PRC copyright law: Chinese, English)

Several Chinese movies have been uploaded to Commons. I am concerned that users may get in trouble for reusing these files for a number of factors:

  1. URAA problem. They are probably still copyrighted in the US.
  2. Article 15 of the law states that The authors of the screenplay, musical works and other works that are included in a cinematographic work or a work created in a way similar to cinematography and can be exploited separately shall be entitled to exercise their copyright independently. As such, I believe songs used in the movies whose composers and lyricists died recently or are still alive are still copyrighted in China, not to mention the US. Some Commons users have cut and uploaded the song segments e.g. File:We are the Communist Successors (1961).webm.

I started Commons:Deletion requests/File:The East Is Red (1964).webm, but it was closed by User:Ellin Beltz without addressing Article 15. Could you please help review the problem? Are these movies really free?--Roy17 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Hi,

sometimes I have the impression that images have commons imcompatible licenses because I uploaded it. So I ask you: File:Salares y salinas en Argentina, Bolivia y Chile.png taken from the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0811/report.pdf , has it the right permission?. --Juan Villalobos (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Tough question, because you need to find, or to reasonably assume, the origin of this map. The 1974 report is presented as a cooperation of the USGS and the IIGC (Chile). The report mentions that some early work was sponsored by other organizations, including the United Nations. The report acknowledges contributions of various people and organizations to the study, but there does not seem to be anything specific about the illustrations. We're left with assuming that the two authors of the report are to be considered the authors of the illustrations, as well as of the text. The question then becomes if the authors were employees of the U.S. federal government when they wrote the report or if they were in some other contractual or sponsorship situation. The report does not include biographical notes about the authors. From other sources found on the internet, it seems that both authors, Stoertz and Ericksen, had a career at USGS. From which, and unless contrary information is found, it seems reasonable to conclude that the map is a work of employees of the USGS and may be tagged with PD-USGS. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It was also published before 1978 without a copyright notice. Generally, the USGS makes a lot of maps, so I have no problem assuming that maps in a USGS paper were taken from their own agency (even if not by those particular authors). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Potential deletion

Hi- This is re File:Grave and headstone of Kate Foster nee Kelly.jpg, which has a delete tag on it. I thought I supplied all the necessary information when I uploaded it, but apparently not. What do I need to fix it? (Original photo held by State Library of Victoria, who date it circa 1898, they state clearly the pic is out of copyright on the catalogue page, I provided link to catalogue entry etc). [[11]] and [[12]]. Thankyou for any advice. Curdle (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagged {{PD-Old-100}}. That should be enough. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much ! had no idea what to tag it as. Curdle (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn in Charade (1963)

File:Audrey Hepburn in Charade (1963).png is new and has permission "Copyright expired because the work was published without a copyright notice and/or without the necessary copyright registration." I'm hoping someone who understands these things will check. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done When this film was published, US copyright required a formal copyright notice including the word "copyright" and the © symbol. This was not applied though for Charade. De728631 (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Amazing, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Nosacz janusz.png and sharpphotography.co.uk

Is there any free licence claim on the source page? ~Cybularny Speak? 12:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This statement appears sufficient to confirm the photographer does release their work on Commons. Maybe the source file for this derivative is on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. ~Cybularny Speak? 13:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Now raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nosacz janusz.png. --Fæ (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: Hi - do you have any comments to make about this discussion? -- Martinvl (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification Martinvl. Speak? Fæ I do not know the details of the licences and what is permitted. I would expect any person to contact me to use one of my images and I do not expect people to edit them like this user has done without my authority. Charles (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Unarchived this thread as the photographer has now commented on the "racial" use of their photograph.

Just as a reminder, the photographer's image of a proboscis monkey is being used to deride a "racial" stereotype of Polish people as monkeys. Some Polish Wikipedia contributors believe this is funny and should be interpreted in good faith, though the text on the image specifically targets Wikipedians when the meme described at the one use the image has at pl:Janusz_(określenie) is nothing whatsoever to do with targeting Wikipedians, and the photograph has never been used as a meme for this stereotype by anyone else or anywhere else.

Given the history of comparing and deriding racial groups as monkeys, the user created derivative remains problematic, despite the influx of Polish Wikipedians to the Commons deletion request which made it reflect viewpoints from the Polish Wikipedia, rather than necessarily the Wikimedia Commons wider community. --Fæ (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone direct their comments to the VP thread to avoid fragmenting this discussion. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/10&oldid=378577213"