Is there a more precise clarification of which SOHO images are licensed for non-commercial use only, and whether there are any SOHO images that are more freely licensed?
For example, if an image exists on the NASA website which only has the credit "NASA", does this mean that it is covered only by the usual NASA copyright and not also by the SOHO copyright?
Also, are there any SOHO images, or images of the SOHO spacecraft or any of its instruments that are available under the NASA "public domain" license? I am asking this because I would wish to upload NASA public domain images to Wikimedia Commons, and a free license is needed so that others can make derivatives of them (such as cropping, and adding annotations), and also possibly make commercial use of them. Commons requires a license such as Creative Commons with attribution, or a similar license that also allows making derivatives and commercial use.
Here is the reply I received on November 18 - I opened my email inbox just now on November 20. I have anonymized my email address. -Wikibob (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
reply from SOHO Webmaster
Re: webmaster inquiry
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:32 AM
From: "webmaster webmaster-at-esa.nascom.nasa.gov |wikipedia|" <senderanon@email.address>
To: recipientanon@email.address
Dear Wikibob,
SOHO is project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA. Neither ESA (as far as I know) or NASA have adopted licenses under Creative Commons, and it's not up to us to do so for SOHO, in particular since none of the options really apply in our case.
If I had to fit SOHO imagery within the Creative Commons framework, I would say that two different licenses are required:
a) for non-commercial use: the "Attribution-NonCommerical" license (and whatever it requires)
b) for commercial use: the "Attribution" license (and whatever it requires) with the additional qualifier that the users cannot trade on the names of NASA, ESA, SOHO nor should they imply in any way that SOHO, ESA and NASA endorse or support their product.
FWIW, to keep things simple, I would suggest staying with the existing copyright policy as stated in the SOHO website.It has worked fairly well for the pas 12 years or so.
Hope this helps,
SOHO Webmaster
for SOHO WEBMASTER wrote:
> This question was submitted via for SOHO WEBMASTER (SOHO Webmaster) on
> Monday, November 10, 2008 at 18:35:06
...
Email to Barbara Waibel at the Zeppelin Museum[edit]
Sehr geehrte Barbara Waibel,
ich bin Wikibob, ein Editor von Commons.wikimedia.org und ich bin auf die Suche von Hinweise ueber Louis Glaser von Leipzig. (Zuerst entschuldigen Sie bitte von meine schlechten Deutsch.)
Meine Fragen haengen von Postkarten mit Zeppeline, zum Beispiel der "Graf Zeppelin's Luftschiff vor der Schutzhalle auf dem Bodensee" das hier sichtbar ist:
(Nummer 6903 Verlag Louis Glaser, Leipzig, circa 1908)
Nun, meine Fragen:
1. war das Fotograf diesen Postkarte bekannt?
2. Gibt es Info ueber Louis Glaser, zB Todesdatum?
3. Ist dieses Bild vielleicht irgendwo mit dem Namen des Rechteinhabers aufgetaucht?
(Auf Englisch: Has this Zeppelin photograph appeared in a publication with the name of the photographer, or with the marking "anonymous"?)
Der Grund meiner Fragen ist dass Commons.Wikimedia.org hat strenge Regeln um Bilde von Unbekannte zu acceptieren.
Update: I just received an answer from Barbara, in the negative: "... keine Informationen zu dem Fotografen des betreffenden Fotos ...", and also no info on the postcard publisher. -Wikibob (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The Upload your own work form has a green tick next to:
Photographs or videos you have created of:
natural landscapes, animals, and plants
people that are either public figures or are taken at public events
... and others.
This Commons:Licensing article's Checklist section appears to try to reflect that form with: OK
Own photos of:
Nature (forest, sky, etc.)
...
Produce (apples, tomatoes, etc.)
People who have given their consent
... and so on.
I have bolded the phrases that need clarification.
Is "people at public events" a shorthand for "People who have given their consent"?
I have seen that people's opinions differ as to what a public event means, or what it means for someone to give consent. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people expands on this with "consent is not usually needed for straightforward photographs taken in a public place, but is often needed for photographs taken in a private place." Should we link to this, eg. ", but see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people"? Others assume a place is public, or that people in a place should expect to have photographs take, but without evidence of either, and sometimes with insufficient information on the photographer, the date, and the country where taken.
Here is a list of places and situations, with my uninformed personal opinion attached (PRIVATE means needs explicit permission):
people in a private club where admittance is required = PRIVATE
people in a United Kingdom public house = PRIVATE
students in a classroom = PRIVATE
people walking in a shopping street = PUBLIC, maybe Ok
people in a museum = PRIVATE
people in a shopping mall = PRIVATE
people in a beauty pageant indoors = PRIVATE, borderline?
people on holiday on the beach = PUBLIC
a politician speaking at a public podium = PUBLIC
While the above are only my interpretations of Commons policy, I would still feel personally not Ok taking and uploading a picture of anyone without permission in most of the PUBLIC cases, and espcially not for unsolicited closeup photographs.
This is a list of images found on the web older than 1885, the date when images from unknown photographers unpublished before 2003, or from known photographers with unknown date of death, *might* fall into the public domain. (no longer sure about this!)
snapshotsofthepast.com has some quite old photographs and posters, some of which
appear to be in the public domain, at least in the US. However, according to en:User:Quadell/copyright some may still be
under copyright only if they had not been published before 2003 and the author is unknown:
4. If the work has NEVER been published before in any form, it is considered an "unpublished work". Alternatively, if a work was FIRST published in 2003 or later, even though it was created before 1935, it is still legally considered an "unpublished work".
5. If an "unpublished work" is by a known author with a known year of death, then the work is in the public domain if the author died before 1935.
6. If an "unpublished work" is by an anonymous or corporate author, or if the year of death for the author is not known, then the work is in the public domain if the work was created before 1885.
asking snapshotsofthepast clarification of copyright[edit]
snapshotsofthepast have not replied as of today. -Wikibob 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
To Email: sales (at) snapshotsofthepast (dot) com
Dear snapshotsofthepast,
Some images appear to be in the public domain as they were made
either by the U.S. federal government, or as part of a U.S. military
employee's duties.
Surely, this should read "Some of the text... etc", and other pages
could maybe indicate that the copyright resides with the original
author (if known and if the copyright has not been contractually transferred)?
regards
my name
email: my email address
As of December 17 No reply to my above email dated 4 December 2005 from snapshotsofthepast.
The commons accept material that is in the public domain, that is, documents that are not elegible to copyright or for which the copyright has expired. A work is generally considered to be in the public domain after the creator of the work has been dead for more than 70 - or in the US, 95 - years. That is, if a non-American author died before 1935, and an American author died before 1910, their work can safely be assumed to be in the public domain in almost any jurisdiction. If the work is anonymous, it is in the public domain 70 years after the date of publication according to the Bern convention.
A work may also be in the public domain (worldwide or in some jurisdictions), if one of the country-specific exceptions discussed below are applicable. Note however that the details of copyright law are very complicated, especially when international laws and treaties have to be taken into account. In general, if something was created and first published in one country, that country's laws probably apply.
In some jurisdictions (like the United States), you can also explicitly donate work you have created yourself to the public domain. In other places (like the European Union) this is technically not possible, but you can grant an unlimited license instead. See Commons:Donate to the public domain for details.
Complicated by: "Under this act, no additional works made in 1923 or after, and that were still in copyright in 1998, will enter the public domain until 2019."
Understand when an image becomes Public domain for various countries, for works made by a single person (not a group, not a corporation and not anonymously) - to be researched later, database errors permitting.
Country Date published Author's death Date enters Public Domain?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States up to 1923 any year PD already
United States 1923 to 1963 any year 2019 if renewals filed
United States 1923 to 1963 any year 2019 if in copyright in 1998
United States 1923 to 1963 any year PD if in PD in 1998
Berne-C-States 1924 1924 1975
to to to
1933 1933 1981 ?
1934 1934 1982 ? or 2019 ?
Photographs or videos you have created of:
PRIVATE
PUBLIC, maybe Ok
_(1730).gif)
