User talk:Clindberg/archives 7

Hubblesite

Dear Carl,

thanks for the clarification. Well. I've just typed "hubblesite" in the search field and got 808 hits. I've checked the the first files:

• File:Accretion disk.jpg Illustration Credit: ESA, NASA, and Felix Mirabel (French Atomic Energy Commission and Institute for Astronomy and Space Physics/Conicet of Argentina), 2002
• File:Abell S740.jpg ok
• File:Cone Nebula (NGC 2264) Star-Forming Pillar of Gas and Dust.jpg Credit: NASA, H. Ford (JHU), G. Illingworth (UCSC/LO), M.Clampin (STScI), G. Hartig (STScI), the ACS Science Team, and ESA, 2002
• File:Sagittarius dwarf galaxy hst.jpg ok
• File:NASA's Hubble Shows Milky Way is Destined for Head-on Collision with Andromeda Galaxy.tif there is some discussion, but i think it's ok. 2012
• File:Pistol star and nebula.jpg Credit: Don F. Figer (UCLA) and NASA., 1997
• File:PolarisA.jpg Credit: NASA, ESA, N. Evans (Harvard-Smithsonian CfA), and H. Bond (STScI), 2006
• File:Einstein Rings.jpg Credit: NASA, ESA, and the SLACS Survey team: A. Bolton (Harvard/ Smithsonian), S. Burles (MIT), L. Koopmans (Kapteyn), T. Treu (UCSB), and L. Moustakas (JPL/Caltech), 2005
• File:Reflection nebula IC 349 near Merope.jpg ok
• File:Hudf-illustration.jpg Illustration Credit: NASA, A. Feild and Z. Levay (STScI), 2004
• File:Stephan's Quintet.jpg Credit: NASA and S. Gallagher IPenn State University, 2001
• File:Ngc1999.jpg ok

So we got 5/12. Should we put a copyvio Tag in the rest ?

Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The ESA licenses many of their hubble images -- see {{CC-Hubble}} or {{ESA-Hubble}}. They once also placed them in the public domain, but nowadays have a CC license. The hubblesite.org site says the STScl ones are also fine, quite possibly even ones where they have partial credit (apparently the contract which pays for that work mandates public domain status). Most images taken by the Hubble itself are probably OK; the image in question in the undeletion requests involved images taken by observatories on Earth (or at least derivatives of them) so they didn't originate with NASA at all, and are definite copyright issues if not licensed. For the others, we need to figure out if the non-NASA credits have to do with actual authorship, or some non-copyrightable aspect (for example, NASA often credits the institution who built the instrument used to take the photo, even though that does not figure into the copyright, and things like that). Given the description of that other image though, there was definitely an authorship issue, as it used non-NASA photographs. It's possible, even likely, there are other problem images among the hubblesite ones we have uploaded. The note you saw at the bottom of the hubblesite.org copyright page though may well be significant though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Can I request your opinion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr. C. W. Saleeby, obituary, 1940.png? I'm not sure how EC regulations, UK law and the URAA interact here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:PD-Ottoman Empire

Hi, could you possibly take a look at my major revisions to Template:PD-Ottoman Empire (and put any comments in the COM:VPC thread)? Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup

I notice your quite large talk page has threads dating back to 2006... I commend User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup to you for instant auto-archiving. cheers, Rd232 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ursa_Minor_Dwarf.jpg

I think you will find this raises an interesting question. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mali Village Dance.ogv

And another one, please. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with both of these. Your expertise makes me feel good about them, even though you changed my mind in both cases.

This is another case where it would have been helpful if you could see the file -- please let us get you Admin permission -- I think you would be a shoo-in and helpful to all of us. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Request to Undelete File: 125th_Reg_Color.jpg

Please undelete the file at your earliest convenience. Thank you--Donaldecoho (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The file was at File:125th_Reg_Color.jpg and was deleted on September 6 for having no source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have both obtained permission and stated the source ( http://cpc.state.pa.us ), website of the Capitol Preservation Committee.--Donaldecoho (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama vs. character copyright

Hey Carl, what do you think of this one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris Parade Navidad 2010-09.JPG. Kaldari (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about copyright status of non-artistic photos created in Hungary

Hello, Carl! Please see en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 7#File:Pál Teleki 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg and advise what should be the next step. Thank you, Razvan Socol (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Peru - 34770 - President Leguia.tif

File:Peru - 34770 - President Leguia.tif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

181.64.169.109 22:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flickr-spoogman-cc-by.jpg

I don't understand your comment here. FOP does not trump the Rockstar Games copyright unless the graffiti/mural was authorized by them, does it? Since we have no proof that it was authorized, FOP is irrelevant. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct -- I thought it was clear there that I think it's authorized, as part of an organized advertising campaign. The exact same mural is in multiple locations around the world. I can't believe it's graffiti -- I think it's a mural. To the point it's almost silly to think otherwise. I'm actually less sure the photo was from Germany... Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry -- I missed that. I get it now -- you are probably right. However, it's still a delete as the Flickr image is ARR. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was Flickrreviewed, so it was flickr-change-of-license, but not deletable on account of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It may have been Flickrreviewed while at WP:DE, but, if so, the tag was not copied to Commons and there is no Flickrreview tag on the file now. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thought I remembered seeing the tag there, but if not, then fair enough (obviously). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SLO-Tišina1.JPG

Hi, as you have participated in Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities in an insightful way, I invite you to voice your opinion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SLO-Tišina1.JPG. Thanks. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please also comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coats of arms in Istria? These files were taken down from official municipal web pages. Thanks. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14 B&W lite.gif

Would you take a look at this? It's a similar question to Ursa Minor Dwarf, on which you helped my thinking. Basically, can a satellite image of earth have a copyright? Thanks, .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aeou

Several interesting questions here -- most important, does a building that was created in Poland but is now in the Ukraine because of the border change, have Polish or Ukrainian FOP? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

trailer photos

Hi Carl, in case you have the opportunity (and the nerves), could you eventually take a look at the underlying copyright question in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dr. No Bikini and here (same on different boards). Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

I asked a question at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Dziwne_.2A_and_related_improper_deletions_by_Krzysiu to make sure I fully understand your point. Could you comment there if I did? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've summarized our discussion at User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright. Could you clarify (you are welcome to edit that subpage directly) the following: "that is very rare outside of books" (I am not sure what you mean by that?). "Exception: it's possible for works for Polish authors who died before 1942 to still be copyrighted, if the works were published posthumously 1946 or later." (what's the basis for that claim? It shouldn't be EU, so I guess it's something to do with the US copyright?) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice, please

Hi Carl, Would like to use this. This is the first photo I've seen from this show of his. Have been through copyright records for 1952, found no record (early TV days), and none for any possible renewal. The photo was taken from a kinescope at Paley Center. My concern is that it's a copy made by the museum. TIA for your thoughts, We hope (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Athens Olympic Stadium

Interesting question here. NASA satellite image of modern stadium in Greece. Does US FOP apply? Greek FOP? Neither? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It was an interesting question, but I missed one important point - the photo is not a NASA image as was claimed. So it's just a straightforward copyvio. --Avenue (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Category:Cluj-Napoca_Orthodox_Cathedral

Carl, would you take a look at this? Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be closed now. While I can't see the images, I would never delete an image where a building is just part of a wide panorama (even if it's the only really notable thing in the photo). In that case, the building is not the primary subject of the photo, the entire area is. It should not matter if there is a nondescript city skyline with one building which really stands out -- the subject of the photo is still the skyline. While it may not pass a strict de minimis test, that is not the only reason why something would not infringe. The French courts applied a "theory of the accessory" to photos where the building was prominent but only part of the larger focus, and U.S. courts have also said that something which is incidental to the main subject should not cause the photo to be deemed derivative. If it's a photo of the entire area where the building is, then the area is the subject, not the building. Of course I'm sure there are lots of gray areas with something like that, particularly when the building is centered, but... Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to see them. In the most egregious of them the cathedral was in the center of the image, and occupied at least a third of the image horizontally and half of it vertically. The rest of the buildings were just red tile roofs and white stucco. My test is "would this image be in scope if we replaced the problematic object (building, sculpture, etc.) with clones of the rest of the image area?" In this case, I don't think so.

I think it's about time for my periodic reminder that you could see images like this if only you would let us get you Admin status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

violating derivative or not?

Hi Clindberg, in case you also have some expertise about when a derivative may violate the original's copyright, would you mind to have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:GADDUM.png? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Public Record vs. Public Domain? Deletion discussion for Template:PD-WAState

Hey, thanks for your comments on the deletion discussion for Template:PD-WAState. I've briefly replied to your comments there, and would appreciate your feedback. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Undel req question

Hi Carl. Can you take another look at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gobierno de España? This discussion has gotten a bit stale, and I'm trying to get these older undel reqs taken care of. Do you think these should be restored? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 21:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi, do you remeber this message? this cancellation procedure is about the same issue, another piece of Industrial design nominated for deletion due to the strichtest reading of law (?). They are already discussing about cancelling pictures of Italian cars... Can you please support your opinion again? Thank you! --Sailko (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about PD-Romania

Last year, you added this, saying that a work may be in the public domain in Romania if the following is true:

• The copyright is owned by someone older than 25 other than immediate family or descendants, and the author died before 1981 (15 pma)

Would you be able to confirm this? I suspect that this only applies if the work entered the public domain before 1996 (i.e. if the person was older than 25 years before 1996) if it ever applies at all. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was likely older than 25 as of 1996. You can see the notes at en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#endnote_tab_romania, and the links from there. It appears that the 1996 law was deemed non-retroactive, so it had to be PD by those terms on Jan 1, 1996. There were also discussions here on the Romanian copyright, where the confusion in the text of the law was brought to attention here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Brühl (1942-1991).jpg

Hi Carl,

Could you please give your opinion about this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Victory at Sea

Another potentially interesting copyright question if you're interested in having a look. – JBarta (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question

I think you will find Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Pablo_Picasso_The_blind_man.27s_meal_1903.JPG interesting. I think your clarity on complex issues would be helpful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Thomas Hart Benton - Achelous and Hercules - Smithsonian.jpg

Thanks, moogsi (blah) 06:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Free photographs of copyrighted architecture

Hi, Carl. Could you as an experienced user please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Bank of Slovenia.jpg. The nominated photos depict architecture, which is still copyrighted, but the photos themselves were published before 1970 and are in the public domain in the source country. Does this make them free for any usage? Perhaps it's best if you reply at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#challenge the Slovenian interpretation, where this question has also been asked by another user. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Banners

Hi, I have another question for which I would value your opinion. I've tagged an image of a banner as 'derived -no source';[1] however, if banners qualify as works of applied art it would be in the public domain (the photo was created before 1970 so it is free too). What do you think? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it would be applied art. Also not completely sure that would be derivative of individual design bits itself, as it is focusing on the entire banner, but that is debatable. The photo was lifted from http://www.ercigoj.com/en/tradition/ though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The owner of the web page has been confirmed through the OTRS to be the same as the uploader of the image, and the photo was created before 1970 (in Yugoslavia, they were protected for 25 years; in Slovenia this was extended to 70 years in 1995). I'll leave the tag. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

To not delete unnecessarily, I've replaced the 'ns -derived' tag with a request for deletion. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Limited licence

Hi, the rights holders of File:Ladies Of Oz Jim Creighton.jpg are wondering if they can limit the resolution they are licensing even though larger sizes may be found on the net. If so did I annotate it correctly?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes they can, and it looks fine. It's best to send (or have the copyright owners send) that email to OTRS as well, so the permission is documented. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a few more she emailed me as well. She is the rights holder as producer on most of them. She has contacted the photographers on the few that she doesn't have rights to and sent them a copy of the permission form. I am trying to get her draft article ready to go live this weekend so I will be uploading a few more for the layout. The OTRS forms should be in by Monday/Tuesday. I assume she can use the same ticket number for the ones that she produced but I will let her sort that with her OTRS volunteer. Do you know if WMF bikinis have ever been proposed for the shop or would that be politically incorrect?--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

One OTRS email can apply to multiple photos, yes. Just use the same number on all the photo pages. They can even give advance permission for future photos, I'm pretty sure -- just be as specific as possible about how those photos are identified. As for the shop, no clue whatsoever. I'd have my doubts they would want to do something like that but I don't know them and can't really speak for them at all. Not sure if they collaborate with other organizations with that stuff or not either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

FOP Australia

It seems we need to delete all our Batmobile images because of a recent court case. File:BatmobileBegins.jpg was taken in Australia with FOP. Can you translate the copyright law to English from Australian? Does "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place", mean permanent display and how long is permanent? We are discussing at pump/copyright and the DR page. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Batmobile (1966)--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Permanent is more based on intent -- is it scheduled to be removed from display? Not sure I'd call that permanent in any way. On the other hand... a photo of a (legal) car is very different than making an actual replica. Just as there have been several cases where costume makers were convicted of creating unauthorized character costume replicas, but I've not ever heard of a photograph of a (legal) costume being ruled a problem. Those would be completely different situations in a court case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to pop over to that DR then. I think they are doomed to deletion even though that ruling doesn't cover images of the cars. I assumed they had declared it a 3D work of art so even images of copyvio cars cannot be hosted here? Same as my painting by Ed Miracle was deleted. I still haven't recieved word back on authentication. If Chanel likes her article she may buy a t-shirt and pose in that for us. I still think a bikini would be better..--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thougths?

The batmobile may be a vehicle but so is the Millenium Falcon. The Falcon is fictional and so is most of the batmobile. The car is just a model of that fictional vehicle made from a one off prototype of which many aren't operable like the Falcon. It just happens this one was operable. Thoughts? I copy/pasted this from the pump/copyright thread. Delete here if you wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

can a "for wikipedia" statement invalidate a simultaneous CC/GFDL licensing?

Hi Clindberg, a user in good standing (not an undercover agent of DCRI) found that the currently very hot image File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg was released (likely by its creator) under a CC+GFDL license, but at the same time with the statement "Utilisation Libre sur Wikipedia et pour tous les contenus dépendant de la Wikimedia Foundation."[2]. Does this — from Commons' perspective restrictive — statement invalidate or legally impair the free licenses for this image? The related DR is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Corporate ownership and Canadian copyright term

In a discussion at VPC, it arises that File:Canadian Public Domain.svg says corporate ownership leads to PD at 50 years post publication, a point not addressed by Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Canada which says 50 pma except for anonymous works that remain anonymous 50 years post publication. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks, Dankarl (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Oscar may be PD

See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Academy Award Winners 1972.jpg. If the Academy sent the photo to the Baltimore Sun in 1972 then is that image of the statues in public domain? I also remember that proper notice is copyright mark, name, and year. A 1960 image and many others I found on Ebay jusy have " © A.M.P.A.S. " on the staues. No year and just the initials.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

CMG vs Milton Greene and Tom Kelley, 4 years, last appeal decided in late 2012.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

w:Margaret M. Morrow was the judge in one. It is listed last in her significant decisions section but the link is broken. Do you mind if I put a 'skip to bottom' template at the top of this page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That case was primarily about publicity rights, not copyright. The most recent appeal was the one I linked on the Monroe deletion request; the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed the decision after California changed its law to retroactively create posthumous publicity rights, but New York's law was the one which still applied to Monroe. It's possible early rounds of that court case affirmed Kelley's copyright but the plaintiffs could never have had any copyright interest in the first place so I'm not sure there ever would have been a ruling on that with Monroe LLC as plaintiffs -- their only claim would have been to Monroe's likeness, which (if valid) could have restricted some of the potential uses of the photos. The archived link is here but there were later appeals. I see reference to another case here but it would appear by that listing that the suit was dismissed. Many of the copyright.gov registrations are for derivative works (computer enhancements etc.) but the original renewals probably were filed before the copyright.gov records start. It would not surprise me though if the copyright question had come up in other cases -- I see reference to some cases here as well where copyright ownership was at least assumed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The few cases, including the analysis you listed above, that I have looked at state that TKS (Tom Kelley Studios) is the copyright holder of the original 10 images. If the public domain for no notice had ever arisen then I assume that would change things and be mentioned. Having so many pirate/bootleg versions out makes it murky but very hard to prove no notice on the official ones including calendars by Western Lithograph. One can assume that if they produce one official version that shows notice then they should all have notice as they would probably use the same printing plate as a basis for all official calendars. What year was the pre-1977 no-notice creates public domain decided on? Was it always the case from 1923, 1909, or earlier, or a recent decision? This is similar to why the rights holders of my no-notice I Told You So painting by w:Ed Miracle emailed WMF to have it deleted here. I still beleive that he officially had ones produced, (mine which seems too high a quality to be a pirate), that had no notice. With so many pirates out then he only has to produce one with notice. I have tried to get his people to authenticate it but if they do as being pre-1977 then that would release them all to public domain.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The copyright notice form was part of the 1909 Copyright Act, though I think different forms of notices were required before that (probably not as regimented). It was made less stringent by the 1976 act, then done away with on March 1, 1989 when the U.S. joined the Berne Convention. But yes, if there were lots of bootleg copies out there actually proving distribution without notice becomes very difficult. And technically, the copyright owners do not have to prove anything in regards to notice -- it's up to the defendants to prove PD status by showing distribution without notice. The plaintiffs would have to show valid copyright registration, and (if old enough) renewal, but that's about it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I just noticed that Category:Academy Awards probably has a few thousand that aren't De min. I mentioned it at ANI and they will probably clean it up soon. WMF legal has my query on the top of their list for the week of May 6. Can we host images of Oscar from the four FOP countries that he is on perm display in? I don't know why our De min, FOP pages, etc, don't specify yea/nay already.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it's legal to host them -- they would be fair use in most non-commercial contexts. It's just a question if they are "free" and that can be kind of subjective, particularly when they are free in some places but not others, and it's sometimes a matter of degree. Per previous policy we would host them (and there was no real decision to change policy). If they are truly derivative works, it's kind of murky. The U.S. might use foreign FoP law, at least to a point, or they may use U.S. law alone to determine the scope of the sculpture's copyright. It may even be a mixed bag -- something like the Oscar statuette which was taken and displayed abroad without any control by the copyright owner may be less likely to be OK then a sculpture knowingly placed in a FoP country by the sculptor, who was or should have been aware of the FoP situation where he was placing it. But it's also likely that a photo would have to be focusing on the statue itself in order to be derivative -- a photo of the entire ceremony may not be even though they aren't truly de minimis. I don't think the Academy gets derivative rights over every photo where the statuette happens to appear (although, cropping to just the statuette would be a problem). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That is why WMF may wish to look into it. I brought it up with User:Mdennis (WMF) on her en:wp talk page if you would like to pop over there and offer any info that may help them sort it out. The 'Clarify FOP' section of her talk page. Can we crop an FOP image down to just the statue and use it in the infobox of the award article? Can we also use a cropped version to replace the copyvio statue in all of those no-notice images of winners holding it on eBay? The soup gets thicker.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wisdom

Hi, does File:Branson Belle stage curtain 2005.jpg look below threshold for the USA? I asked at pump/copyright and no response yet. I don't want to bother the DR backlog with it. I will just tag it speedy delete, uploader request it you feel it is copyvio. I uploaded it with some other images of the same ship and it isn't used in any articles yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Peruvian copyright, 1976 image

Dear Clindberg,
I am sure that the image (see [3]) is of free license in the United States since it was published in Peru (1976) in the local sports magazine Ovacion. Peruvian copyright laws did not become standard with worldwide copyright laws until 1996, and the ambiguity of the copyright status was (and still remains) a huge problem in Peru.
However, I am not sure that the image has a worldwide free license (maybe Ovacion in Peru still has some sort of copyright claim over it). The image itself is quite unique since most Teofilo Cubillas images found online are from FIFA or with a clear copyright status. What do you think?--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Ovacion sports magazine with the image (see [4]). No credit is given to the person who took the photo. The whole magazine is filled with these kind of pictures.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how it would be public domain, although I'm unsure of exactly what the terms of Peru's pre-1996 law was (which did appear to conform to the Berne Convention just fine). The U.S. URAA restorations would apply to anything still protected under the terms of their previous law on January 1, 1996 -- from what I can find, it was Law 13714 of September 1, 1961 amended (at least) by Law 24518 of 5 June 1986. Can't find the text anywhere. The current law protects even simple photographs for 70 years from creation. It's not clear if the 1996 law retroactively restored such works or not... the transitional section at the very end just says works "protected by the previous legislation" got the new terms. I don't see any regime to deal with people using PD works which were brought back into copyright, which suggests that the 1996 law was *not* retroactive. I'd have to guess the previous law was at least 50pma (since they were Berne convention members), but no idea about photographs. But even if the photograph had a term of 20 years, a 1976 photo would have only expired at the end of 1996, which means that (a) it would have been extended by the new law so it would still be protected in Peru, and (b) would have been restored by the URAA so its U.S. copyright would last until 2072. If the work was not protected at all in Peru, then it probably was restored by the URAA anyways -- it was only works where the term of protection had expired which got excluded. I would be very surprised if the previous law had a term of protection less than 20 years (though it's very slightly possible). So... I'm pretty seriously doubtful that it is PD in the United States, or even in Peru. We would have to show that it was PD in Peru on January 1, 1996 by the terms of the previous law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Clindberg, thank you for the information.

Regarding the Berne Convention, Peru did not accede to it until 1988 (according to WIPO: [5]). Peru had two previous copyright laws, the first in 1849 (under the Castilla administration) and the second in 1961 (under the Prado administration).

According to the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru's blog (see [6]), the 1961 law was modified twice (but these modifications do not concern copyright terms).

I found the text of the law (in Spanish, from Peru's government website here: [Blocked by Spam protection filter]). Several important points, but a few are relevant to this case (of photographs):

• All photographs are subject to copyright protection for 20 years starting for those who were published on or after January 1, 1962 (Page 6, article 27).
• This seems to indicate that all photographs prior to 1962 are PD (assuming the 1849 law's protection for them, if it ever existed, ended).
• Only photographs part of "literary or scientific works" (and whose authorship is clearly defined) can be protected for a longer period (which the law defines as "all the time that the work enjoys legal safety", which is ambiguous).

This raises the question: Is Ovacion, sports magazine, a literary or scientific work? (I know it sounds like a silly question, but sports can be considered a science, and Ovacion does have a literary context to it; I am really not sure).

In any case, the photo was not PD by January 1, 1996 (since it published in 1976). Under the 1961 law, its protection would have ended in 1997.

I'm going to conclude that this means the photo in question is not PD. If this is the case, could you please list it for deletion (I am not sure how to do that here in Commons)?

Thank you again for the help. You are awesome!

All the best.--MarshalN20 (talk)

Here is the link to the 1961 law in Spanish (You have to connect the "google" link, I added a space between the two "o" in order for it to pass the spam protection filter): http://www.go ogle.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fspij.minjus.gob.pe%2FTextos-PDF%2FLeyes%2F1961%2FOctubre%2F13714.pdf&ei=24qbUfDbKtTOqQHDiIH4Dw&usg=AFQjCNH6WNLQM81ESRqiXD6Z_74-90uYGg

Regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Peru was a member of the Universal Copyright Convention from the 1950s; that was the United States' primary international convention until they themselves joined the Berne Convention in 1989. They also joined the Andean Community of Nations; I believe there was a common agreement in 1993 or so for a general term of 50pma, although certain types of works could be shorter. The text of the 1961 law you posted is here; you just have to remove the Google search wrapper to avoid the spam filter. However there is no text layer, so it's not easy for me to paste that into Google Translate :-) The 1986 modification is here; that seems to have something to do with terms but I'm not sure it's too significant. Typically, magazines would be literary works, but I've not heard the distinction of "scientific work" very often so maybe we'd need to look into the definitions in that 1961 law. It's possible that the 1961 law granted protection to existing photographs -- if there is any specific information like that, it would usually be at the end in "transitional provisions" or something like that. I'm sure the 1849 law did not protect photographs explicitly but they had been protected by general international practice before 1961 (and probably the UCC), so there may have been an amendment at some point. This would all be good information to have, particularly if the 1996 law is non-retroactive (which it looks like to me, but not positive). But yes, if the previous protection was 20 years, it would seem this photo is definitely still copyrighted. You can use the "Nomination for deletion" link on any image page, which I'll do for this one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to research more about this and see what more can be found. The good thing is that we now know for sure that most photos published from 1976 until later (in Peru) are not in the public domain (at least until 2046). The 1996 law seems retroactive to images still protected by the "prior law" (that being the 1961 law, with the 20 year protection). If the law was retroactive to even prior years, would this not only affect those images published until 1943 (with the 70 year protection)? I'll update you on my findings as soon as I get them. Regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Moor

I'm a bit surprised you brought up simultaneous publication. For URAA purposes, 17 USC 104A(h)(8) seems to select in such cases "the eligible country which has the most significant contacts with the work.", not the one with the shortest duration, like the Berne Convention. So for works published 1923 or later of Russian authors who died or were rehabilitated 1943 or later (or died 1939 or later, if active during the Great Patriotic War), it doesn't look as if simultaneous publication would help. I hope nobody takes it up; it might lead to only even more "forum shopping" and arbitrarily claiming PD-Ukraine or PD-Kazakhstan or whatever just to bypass the annoying re-copyrighting in the Russian copyright law. If the author was born and worked in e.g. Kiev, Ukrainian law would be a reasonable choice. Moor, however, was born, lived, worked, and died in the RSFSR, so for him and his 1917-1922 works, "simultaneous publication" will only muddy the waters. (As an aside, Moor was active during WWII, so for him the copyright term in Russia is actually 74 (formerly 54) years.) Lupo 19:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, simultaneous publication would work differently for the U.S. when determining the "source country" for the URAA. However, for a 1920 work like the one under discussion, that really wouldn't enter into it. Also remember that in 1996, the Russian terms were 50pma, so if works were PD at the time, they were also not restored by the URAA, regardless of what the 2008 law did. So it would be authors who died 1946 or later, technically. The Berne Convention definition is a little bit odd from some perspectives, but really, the works *were* published in say Azerbaijan at the same time, technically. They were all part of the Soviet Union and it seems pretty odd to claim that say Soviet government works were *not* published in those territories at the time, since the works were just as much for them as the RSFSR. The U.S. definition is more common-sense, and definitely comes into play for the URAA, but when it comes to other countries which use the rule of the shorter term, the "country with the shortest term" *would* seem to be the way to do it. It's right there in the Berne Convention, so I don't know why we wouldn't use it for determining the "country of origin", since being PD in the shorter-term countries is one of the reasons why Commons has that rule. Granted the borders were in pretty extreme flux at that time of Soviet history so it does get murky as to what territory it was really published in. I'm sure the Berne Convention definition was really more for situations where the authors chose to publish in more than one country, but it would also seem to be the a somewhat sensible solution to determining the "country of origin" for works from countries which later split up, and there needs to be some solution there -- not sure why we would make a different one up when the treaty itself gives a definition. We don't have many (any?) guidelines on that sort of thing in terms of court rulings, unfortunately. Authors are allowed to publish in countries other than where they live, in which case the country of origin has nothing to do with their home country. For a Berne country which has the rule of the shorter term, which do you think would end up being the country of origin? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course the URAA doesn't enter the picture for pre-1923 works. I thought I had carefully phrased my statement above to that effect. U.S. courts also use, quite outside of URAA issues, the laws of the country with the "most significant relationship" with the work to determine copyright ownership (Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier). As to your closing question: I don't know. That would depend what that country's laws or case law said. Possibly other countries have similar rules about which country to choose in cases of simultaneous publication, or maybe they just do follow the Berne Convention and take the one with shortest copyright term. Depends on the country. Lupo 05:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Help please, I am clueless and you are smart

Please advise on this image: [7]

TCO (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Libyan copyright law

Would you be able to help with Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wiki erudito? The problem is that COM:CRT#Libya is based on the wrong law and that no one is able to find out what the correct law, let alone find a copy of the law. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I could help Carl here - since the overthrow of Gaddafi there has been/is no consistent government in Libya, so such law is open to view (& therefore cannot be challenged in Libyan courts). M Mabelina (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

PD-MAGov

Can I get a second opinion on this? (I.e from someone other than myself on the situation now in Mass. ) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Elvey/Template:PD-MAGov --Elvey (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request for files in Category:Logos of Eurovision that uses the Eurovision heart

Hello Clindberg, As you have previously participated in a discussion regarding deletion Eurovision Song Contest logos, I would like to direct your attention to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Eurovision, where a discussion regarding deletion of 79 logo files are taking place and I would also like to encourage you to participate in said discussion, so we may all benefit from what-ever knowledge and experience, you may have gained during the last discussion. In kind regards, --heb [T C E] 13:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey mate, just thought I would pop by and ask if you would consider an RfA here on Commons. You are active, always ready to help editors, and have a sound knowledge of copyright issues, etc, and I think the community would benefit from you holding the admin tools. Is this something you would be willing to consider? russavia (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I really respect your knowledge as well as your kindness and calmness (deletions debates amp most people, including me, up). Even if you were just kind of a nominal admin (not a lot of banhammering), you probably elevate the whole office.71.127.137.171 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Calling in the best

Please help out at the deletion discussion for the Happy Pan image (just want it resolved so I can use the thing.) [8]

71.127.137.171 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Chandra and Hubble images

Help! Category talk:Chandra images. I think I'm on excellent ground here, but would much like to have your input. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Works of art by William H. Johnson and Gene Davis

Hi Carl,

Could you please add your opinion there: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Works of art by William H. Johnson and Gene Davis. I think there is some significant doubt about the copyright status of these works. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Merry Christmas! And thank you for your work here.

Yann (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pennsylvania state historical markers

I'd appreciate it if you would comment on the "unpublished" argument here. Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#File:Trabalhos.jpg

Appreciating your opinion here. Jee 03:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Jee 07:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A very big thank you!

I just wanted to send you my sincerest thank you for your comments regarding the URAA on Canadian Crown Copyright. Your comments alone have switched the tide at a time when I was days away from hanging up my hat as an editor. So, for renewing my faith and saving years of work from being a waste, I thank you once again! Cheers, Floydian (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-record

Template:PD-US-record has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/archives 7⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:The Merchant Illusteration.jpg

Hi Carl,

Would you please add your comment on this issue: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:The Merchant Illusteration.jpg. I undertand that a work and a reproduction have a different copyright, but maybe I have it wrong. Thanks in advance, Yann (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record

Hello, since you were a participant in the above Deletion discussion I wanted to make sure you were informed of the new Wikilegal report at meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 related to this issue. Wikilegal left a notice on Template talk:PD-US-record saying "Wikilegal is a place for the community to engage in a discourse on legal issues the projects face. Although made by Foundation legal staff or interns, these posts are not intended as legal advice, but they are an opportunity for inquiry and discussion. See meta:Wikilegal for more." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#SVG.27s_are_computer_software.3F

Hi Carl. I saw your note at above and you're quite right. I'm very sorry. Truth is I was a bit frustrated. I'll look through your remarks properly at a later date and I apologised on the page itself. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hm ... interesting user page!

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Clindberg,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

.

Would you care to join this [9] discussion about Olympia at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates talk page. We might need a voice like yours, (calm and wise). --Hafspajen (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nyc transit authority token.png

Hi,

Could you please add your opinion there? Thanks in advance. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Watermarks

Hi Clindberg, would you like to comment at Commons_talk:Watermarks#m:Wikilegal/Removal_of_watermarks_from_Commons_images? --Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Seal of the Vice President

Hi, what is the font you used for inscription in the seal of the Vice President of the US? --Rymich13 (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Imperator maybe? looking at some source files. Looks like I experimented with a few; not sure it's quite right. There may be a more appropriate font out there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Luxembourg Leaks / new document

Hi Clindberg. Another Lux Leaks' document appeared here. Maybe you want to help to sort things out. -- Neudabei (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hemingway portrait.jpg

Hi Carl, Could you please give your opinion about this case? Specifically, does the renewal by the magazine covered also the picture? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

File:SouthDakota-StateSeal.svg

Hi.

This file is licensed {{PD-USGov}} but does that apply to works by the States of the United States?

Another thing en:File:Boise Idaho City Seal.PNG is fair use but the same file de:Datei:Boise Wappen.PNG is "Bild-PD-Amtliches Werk". I think it sounds wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That license does not apply to works by the states, but that file is a work of the federal government. The copyright belongs to whoever did the actual artwork, and has nothing to do with the general design (see Commons:Coats of arms). We can't just pull graphics off of state websites; we have to either draw our own, find representations old enough to be PD, or find some that are PD in other ways. For the South Dakota one, I found a set of state seal drawings from the federal government, which is why they are PD-USGov. (They were in CDC PDFs, but I have seen the same representations in various U.S. embassy websites as well.) The Boise city seal, if the source is correct, would only be fair use -- unless that graphic was scanned from an old work. I don't fully understand the German license, but they may be applying local law where that type of thing is not copyrightable at all in Germany. That rationale would not work for Commons. In the U.S., that file is under copyright and we can only claim fair use (unless that particular representation was published before 1978 without a copyright notice, which is very possible, but we'd need a source for that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --MGA73 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: State seal copyright

The thing is, File:Ohio State Seal, 1967.svg was not merely based on the written description. Other than the incorrect addition of an 18th ray (which I removed) and the addition of some color, it's a facsimile of the reference image included in 107 HB 164 / ORC 5.04. You can see a seal just like it in this 1967 Toledo Blade article. In File:Seal of Ohio (Official).svg, which I linked, I explained exactly why the seal would've been {{PD-old}}. But after reading [10], I'm convinced that the seal couldn't be copyrighted anyways, even if the state had placed a copyright notice on the 1967 Journal. Regardless, authorship definitely doesn't rest with the federal government because they did nothing but add some color and an extra triangle (which I removed). – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 19:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, File:Seal of Ohio.svg is a well-known example of a seal that is based on the written description but not the reference image. (Various agencies use something like it, with the understanding that it's "substantially similar" to the reference image.) – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the removal of the 18th ray. If there is a graphic representation in the law, then it's likely that many representations are based on that (and it looks like the government one is), and those can indeed be derivative works. The law representation also really should be PD-EdictGov in that case. However, most vectorizations will have their own copyright, given the different artistic decisions which go into making vector versions (placement of control points, etc.) There are numerous small lines which are different between the two SVGs, and those are enough to carry copyright on their own. While quite clearly based on the version in the newspaper (there are some aspects which clearly show "based on"), they are still different works, and probably with different copyrights. They may seem like small details, but even though a lot of the image is based on the earlier graphic (and those aspects are not copyrightable), there are numerous small additions/changes which would be enough. The threshold is very low, unfortunately. They are not "facsimiles", which would be a direct mechanical copy -- these look like a lot of the individual lines were altered by hand as well. You are correct that just adding color would not be a copyrightable change, but when it comes to specific outlines, copyright will almost always exist with those, unless they were the pure result of a mechanical vectorization mechanism, with no hand-altering, unless the changes were "slavish imitations" of the original. Just making differences in the shadows in the mountains can be enough, or the lines in the field, or the bits of grass. That is why specifying the PD-USGov is more accurate on that one -- it appears that one comes from a government-vectorized set of images (the CDC was not the author; the same images show up on embassy sites so it's likely they are graphics distribute in the government, maybe made by the State Department at some point in the past, as most of them have details of older versions of the seals such as the number of rays). And it's why I would be very careful about importing a vectorization from Brands of the World -- do you know there was no hand-tuning done to the small details? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, the Blade article wasn't printed or scanned with the highest fidelity. (After all, it was probably printed under a hot type process rather than electronically.) I cite it mainly to prove the image's vintage, but plenty of Ohio government websites display seals that are much closer to File:Ohio State Seal, 1967.svg or File:Seal of Ohio (Official).svg. Some examples of the top of my head: [11][12][13][14] In any case, I'm surprised that the bar for creativity would be so low, given the kinds of images I've seen that are tagged {{PD-ineligible}} and {{PD-shape}}. If we're concerned about the creativity that went into File:Seal of Ohio (Official).svg, I might try to find a copy of Laws of Ohio that we can scan, vectorize, and refine ourselves. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, from a general view they are probably going to look very very similar. But it's also quite true that there can be copyright over the small details -- if someone tweaks all of the points to make it look better to themselves, as opposed to trying to slavishly copy exact outlines found elsewhere, that can hold a copyright. I'm sure there is some abuse of those tags, but the Copyright Office decisions often go to the small details -- if something is just letters or standard shapes arranged in an obvious way, that will usually be ineligible. But if there are small, creative details in the background -- they can give a copyright based on that even though the rest is ineligible. They did give a copyright on this sculpture (another image here); the specific curve and angle were enough. I have read cases where the designs of diamond rings were denied, but in one or two cases a copyright was given based on the decoration on the band. So yes, the small details can matter, even if the image is largely the same. I can see that the newspaper scan may have eliminated a bunch of details which the SVGs both scanned in -- they are pretty similar -- but when you look closely there are tons of small differences, and if that is something beyond an automated vectorization program, then there could be a copyright involved. That may not be something you would know until you go to court and found out exactly what the creation process was. So yes, if we could find a good bitmap or scan of something we know to be PD, then do our own vectorizations off of that, it would be better. Secondly, even though something might be ineligible in the U.S., it could have a copyright in other countries (the UK can allow something of a "sweat of the brow" copyright) and thus it's best not to change otherwise valid copyright tags to PD-ineligible, since if it turns out to be eligible (or it's used in another country), we then have the other tags to fall back on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess then we should be concerned about File:Seal of Ohio.svg. The source is clearly a distinct imitation of the Artist's Version. [15] Unfortunately, we don't know enough about the original painting to say whether its copyright holder would have allowed a derivative to be produced. (We don't know even if the copyright was assigned to the state or a work-for-hire.) I reached out to the state historical society to get more information but haven't heard back yet. And even if the contributor to vector-images.com got permission, the Commons users who modified it probably didn't get permission to make their own derivatives... – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 12:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, missed replying to this. That one would be an interesting case… not clear-cut. That is a separate vectorization, and all of the small details are completely different. It does look as though the basic arrangement was copied somewhat. Whether that crosses into the threshold of being a derivative work is a close one -- there are some similarities which show some of the same ideas were used, but the question really is if there was a copyrightable arrangement on the bitmap version which was copied in the re-vectorization, as opposed to the basic idea of the arrangement. Given that it would be a pretty edgy deletion request, and there was not any wholesale copying, I would tend not to nominate it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Fake US notes

Hi Carl,

I would like your opinion about the copyright of fake US currency, i.e. File:500-Million-Dollar-Series-1934-Federal-Reserve-Note-Cleveland-Ohio-Coupon-Bond-D-45183601-A-Obver.jpg and File:US-Federal-Reserve-Note-Series-1934-1-B-Cleveland-Ohio.jpg. I believe that we can keep these because, these bonds being illegal, the author cannot claim a copyright. What do yo think? Thank you in advance for your help. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Special:Log.2FAlden.harbi

Could you comment on this, please. Jee 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WWII period music score

Your opinion on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#WWII_period_music_score is highly appreciated. Jee 17:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:March Impromptu Code.jpg

You may wish to look closely at the words in German above each bar. These were added to the printed score by what appears to be a typical mid-20th C. typewriter based on ink colour and impact blur. Who may claim copyright over that added text is not defined so far. I mentioned this on OTRS/N but you may have overlooked the observation. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that… they seem to clearly be additions to the original printed material, presumably by the same person who made the written annotations. Titles and short phrases are not copyrightable (in most places). If they are lyrics then maybe, but they didn't have that look to them -- seemed more like titles or cryptic phrases. I took them as uncopyrightable additions, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

After the more than a little confused replies from the original uploader, I find the document highly suspect. It is now clear that it is just a printed copy from Collection Litolff printers, rather than a document that would have been retained in Litolff's papers or archive as was the impression given on OTRS/N (and indeed is the way it is quoted in the book for sale on Amazon). The EXIF data on the image claims copyright in 1945 and has no other dates, so is meaningless. I would rather have a complete copy of the music score without unverifiable alleged Nazi codes without a verifiable chain of provenance.

But I guess "educational value" cuts both ways. If this turns out to be nonsense to sell more books, then it is a moderately good example of nonsense. --Fæ (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Right... it seems to be a regular printed copy with some custom annotations. I won't guess on the provenance of those annotations. I'm not sure that OTRS matters at all -- seems to be a PD work no matter what (don't see where 1945 enters into the copyright) -- but who knows, might be helpful in some countries. Whether or not there is any secret meaning doesn't really matter for the copyright -- seems beyond far-fetched to me, but if people want to have fun with it, whatever. Since it has gotten news coverage on its own, it would seem to be in scope (especially say for wikinews) regardless if the theory is complete nonsense or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed your addition of the LoC scan[16]. Based on that score, it appears to my eyes that this arrangement of Marsch Impromptu (Gottlieb Federlein, 1876) is not the same piece. You may want to update your analysis in the DR, as then Low is the only name put forward as a suspected composer and German copyright law would apply if that abduction is correct. I suspect that there may be many Marsch/March Impromptu variants or different pieces with that title, so a valid deduction may not be possible unless a full score that matches is found. --Fæ (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Boston Public Library collections - Vintage Travel Posters‎

Hi Carl, This DR would require your expertise. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albro lithograph.jpg

Dear Carl Lindberg,

Could you please reply at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albro lithograph.jpg? Natuur12 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Hot seat.jpg

Hi Carl, about five years ago you made clear in the undeletion request of the File:Ettore sottsass, libreria casablanca, 1981.JPG, that pictures of design objects are not subject to copyright other than the copyright on the picture itself. There is no additional permission required from designers (and for that there are tons of pictures of modern products on commons).

However, when I wanted to upload this image, I was notified that this image was proviously deleted here, see here. Do you think it makes sense to fill an undeletion request or am I missing something here. -- Mdd (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well... that can differ by country. In the U.S., utilitarian objects are not subject to copyright, unless there is an element which is conceptually separable from the functional parts of the design (say a 2-D design on the surface, or what amounts to a sculpture attached as a decoration, that sort of thing). The rest of that is generally called "industrial design". The U.S. has something called "design patents" for those; the protection is generally against competitors for manufacturing something identical or very similar, and the protection is nothing like copyright and should not prevent photographs (it also has very different terms). Many other countries have something along those same lines. Some countries, however, choose not to develop a separate realm of intellectual property, and simply lump "industrial design" or "applied art" into the category of artistic works protected by copyright, and let them be protected by that. At that point, it could be up to courts to decide if photographs are a problem. I believe the Netherlands is one of those countries (I think Sweden is another), which would explain that deletion. That photo would have been OK on the English Wikipedia, which uses U.S. law. The Berne Convention says (Article 2(7)): Subject to the provisions of Article 7(4) of this Convention, it shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the extent of the application of their laws to works of applied art and industrial designs and models, as well as the conditions under which such works, designs and models shall be protected. Works protected in the country of origin solely as designs and models shall be entitled in another country of the Union only to such special protection as is granted in that country to designs and models; however, if no such special protection is granted in that country, such works shall be protected as artistic works. So, it is very much a country-by-country thing, and the scope of protection can also vary quite a bit. I think there had been a court case or two which actually did rule photographs infringing, though most I've heard of are about competing products. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. If you are saying "That photo would have been OK on the English Wikipedia, which uses U.S. law...," couldn't the picture be uploaded with some sort of restriction only to use it on the English Wikipedia (and others with similar regulation). -- Mdd (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that would be en:Template:Do not move to Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. Thanks for explaining. -- Mdd (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:4X-AHC Martin Harrison.jpg

Hi, could you take a look at this one? As an application of De minimis, it may be useful as a case book for the policy if kept, as it would set a new standard for all vehicles. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. The case has been added to the de minimis examples. Refer to Commons_talk:De_minimis#Incidental_decoration_for_utilitarian_objects. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

cat-a-lot error?

Hi, you recently moved several of my uploaded images from Category:C-130 Hercules to Category:Category redirects (which should be for categories only). You may want to check that action again. --Fæ (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, operator error, sorry about that. Fixed ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I was wondering if you would permit me to open a request for adminship in your name? Given your skills and the style in which you contribute, I know you would make a fine sysop. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:San Diego TwinPorts proposal-Ron Roberts 1991.jpg

Hi Carl, could you look into this and made a comment, please. Jee 01:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

NJ draft statute copyright.

This PDF of proposed ABC regulations is linked to from this nj.gov web page, at the bottom of which is a menu with Legal Statement & Disclaimers linking to [17]. Section F therein reads:

Section F. Copyright and Trademark Limitations

The State of New Jersey has made the content of these pages available to the public and anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State, unless otherwise stated on particular material or information to which a restriction on free use may apply. However, the State makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. Making a copy of such material may be subject to the copyright of trademark laws.

I want to check with you whether you see any copyright issues that preclude uploading of the PDF at the first link. As you see it, is the verbiage, "anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State." clear enough to free the PDF, given where it's hosted? It doesn't speak directly to attribution, derivatives or commercial use, but a restriction on any kind of use would be an "obligation", so perhaps that's specific enough. ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1420364.html is somewhat on point. Proposed regulations aren't government edicts.)--Elvey (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about derivative works. I think the clause probably encompasses commercial use. I guess the question is if the "copy" term would encompass the copying that happens with adaptation, or if they would explicitly need to allow "adaptation" as well. Granted, that is the type of work where most realistic uses are verbatim copies. We do have a {{PD-IDGov}} tag which sounds somewhat similar, although that is based on the text of copyright law itself and uses the term "reproduction" which might also imply derivative works depending on the law's definition; a license statement like the above may not be bound as tightly to the law's definitions. It does sound like they note that there may be material from third parties in which case the license would not apply. I have to admit that does sound like a {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} type of license, particularly given the clause which indicates that there needs to be an explicit statement to limit "free use". I'd probably vote "keep" if that showed up in a deletion request, but I could see others having some doubts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, it seems that {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} would be appropriate (though I don't see any significant way in which the NJ works are less free than works that are PD). Indeed, the clause that uses the term "free use" does imply that making content available on those pages without an explicit statement to limit "free use", thereby allows "free use". Such additional indication that the works are free is important, given that the license contains the ungrammatical gobbledygook, "Making a copy of such material may be subject to the copyright of trademark laws."

(Can I press you to be more specific about how one could interpret the without obligation clause in a way that would restrict the creation of derivative works, if you see a plausible way to do so? I just don't see how one can interpret the verbiage, "anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State" in a way that restricts the distribution of derivative works, other than to flat out ignore it. As I see it, a person cannot be obliged to not create or distribute modified copies of covered works. Specifically, a person cannot be obliged to not create or distribute modified copies unless there's an obligation to the State to not do so, and any such obligation would be voided by the verbiage in the license which instantly frees the person from any such obligation.) We (usually) don't allow works on commons whose licenses prohibit derivatives, so I agree that we need to be confident that in the case of this NJ content, derivative works are not prohibited.

TIA. --Elvey (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

? I guess you are making the (IMO extremely conservative) assumption that by "without obligation", the State may mean only "without financial obligation"?--Elvey (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	thank you for helping Jonnymoon96 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Local California officials and copyright

Hiya Carl: I saw your comment that PD-CA-gov refers to local officials as well. However the language of that says "paid" and "working". Most local California officials (per Betty Yee's website) are not paid. They are elected volunteers. How would licensing affect those people? For example, we have a well known photographer on our city council, unpaid and elected. How do you determine which of his pictures are his? Are any of his photos covered by PD-CA-gov because he's unpaid? And then how would it shift if he were a paid, elected official? Are all his photos public works? It's a tough test and I'd like to understand it better. Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say paid and working? I would imagine, like Florida, the works in question must be 1) public records by California law, and also 2) works for hire of the government body per copyright law. The latter question can be tortured, but it does not apply to just paid employees I'm pretty sure. In Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, I think the Supreme Court ruled that the principles of the common law of agency must be used to determine a "work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" (which is part of the "work for hire" definition in copyright law), and the agency laws are usually trying to find the distinction between an "employee" and an "independent contractor". It is only employees where the default case would mean the government agency would own copyright; for contractors it depends on the contract, and if not specified, the contractor would retain copyright. The law of agency is probably more usually concerned with liability in labor law; if someone is directing the activities of the government agency, they are probably an "employee" and not a "contractor". From what I can see, there is a publication called the Restatement of the Law of Agency which tries to summarize the state of common law on the subject, and that does have this:

§ 7.07 Employee Acting Within Scope Of Employment

(1) An employer is subject to vicarious liability for a tort committed by its employee acting within the scope of employment.

(2) An employee acts within the scope of employment when performing work assigned by the employer or engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employer's control. An employee's act is not within the scope of employment when it occurs within an independent course of conduct not intended by the employee to serve any purpose of the employer.

(3) For purposes of this section,

(a) an employee is an agent whose principal controls or has the right to control the manner and means of the agent's performance of work, and

(b) the fact that work is performed gratuitously does not relieve a principal of liability.

That last clause seems to say that volunteers, despite not being paid, are still employees. Works conducted within the scope of their employment would therefore probably be works for hire. If that person took photographs because they were assigned that task by the agency, then they are works for hire most likely. If they were photos taken on his own time, or really just on his own initiative without intending for them to be used by the agency (even if at work), then they probably are not, if I'm reading the above right. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarity! I agree 100% with your statement "If they were photos taken on his own time, or really just on his own initiative without intending for them to be used by the agency (even if at work), then they probably are not." Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Before there is any confusion about San Diego Councilmen, they are PAID positions with large well paid staffs. They have large budgets and work done by their office is not private. The Chief of staff of a San Diego City councilman earns well over $150,000. San Diego City Councilmen and their staffs are NOT volunteers. The TwinPorts rendering was done within the "scope of their employment" it was NOT done on private time. Public money was used and it was done on public time, not private time. The San Diego City Council is not staffed by volunteers. I worked WITH Ron Roberts not FOR Ron Roberts. I was not on his staff or a "volunteer," I worked on my own projects. The letter submitted by Ron Roberts office to permissions-commons is quite clear. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

File:San Diego TwinPorts proposal-Ron Roberts 1991.jpg Ticket#2015082010023931

Hello Carl Lindberg, Ron Roberts has submitted a letter to permissions-commons and received a confirmation of receipt on August 20th. It is under Ticket#2015082010023931. I had initially forwarded the letter and email from the office of Ron Roberts to permission-commons but as recommended by Jeevan Jose, to maintain transparency, I asked that the email be sent directly from the office of Ron Roberts to permissions-commons. The letter is quite clear about the issue of public domain and the email from the the office of Ron Roberts also attached a copy of the image in question so that it is clear we are referring to the same color rendering. I would appreciate that the discussion be closed and that the disclaimer stating that the image "has been nominated for deletion" be removed. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I just read the prior discussion of Ellin Beltz. The position of City Councilman in San Diego is a PAID position, San Diego is a major City, not a small town. San Diego councilmen are full time positions with large well paid staffs, e.g. the chief of staff earns well over $150,000 (dollars) annually. San Diego city councilmen are not volunteers, this not a small town where councilmen are part time unpaid officials who also have to hold full time jobs. This is all public record. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I don't think it matters if they were paid or not. If a work was done in the course of their employment, paid or not, it's a work for hire and the government entity would own the copyright. It's only works made for personal purposes which would still be a private copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I did make another comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:San Diego TwinPorts proposal-Ron Roberts 1991.jpg, but that discussion needs to be resolved in order to remove the notice. It's simply a notice that the discussion is ongoing. Hopefully the email will be enough to remove any remaining doubts others have. I'm not an admin, nor do I have access to OTRS, so I can't directly do anything on those counts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I did read it and I can understand the confusion. The Valenzuela rendering was part of the counter-proposal I wrote to try to counter ASA's position of no north side runway, meaning they did not want any runways on the San Diego side and basically wanted San Diego to finance the entire expansion of Tijuana, something U.S. airlines would not buy into and that position was also unacceptable to the City of San Diego which was going to own and operate the airport. What few people know is that the San Diego airport at that time was owned and operated by the San Diego Port and now is an independent airport agency (airport legislation introduced by Steve Peace which took it away from the port and placed it into am airport agency). So at my own expense I changed the Twinports rendering, again this was a City project not a Port project. You will note on Ron Roberts/TwinPorts rendering there is NO cross-border terminal, so the counter-proposal involved developing a Mexico/San Diego "transborder" airport in stages with the first stage building a cross-border terminal and the full expansion of Tijuana, and the second stage building a north side runway (San Diego runway) meaning a staged development in which U.S. airlines would be encouraged to invest on the Tijuana side to develop international routes which could then tie into their domestic flights on the San Diego side as the downtown San Diego airport would be phased out. It also should be noted that the time frame for building any new airport in the U.S. is 10 years minimum during which the Tijuana airport and international routes would have been developed. The negotiations were very complex and politically charged both in the U.S. and Mexico, especially after the governor of California, Pete Wilson had a confrontation with Mexico's Minister of Foreign Relation Solana over the issue of the illegal immigration which basically torpedoed the airport negotiations. I am sure you have had enough of this, but if you like, I can be contacted by email or telephone. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You Got Mail

Hello, Clindberg. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Josve05a (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wellcome collection

Thanks for response to the deletion request File:Unidentified man... There are several others listed on Dominick's talk page. They are in my judgement PD for various reasons but nailing those reasons down for a whole set is more than I can handle now. Could you reiterate your argument for the rest if appropriate? Thanks. Dankarl (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

For the photographs in the set these are from (except File:Unidentified man which is clearly much older) the most likely author is Henry Wellcome (d1936). A trip (or two) through Alaska 1897-1901 contains the set. Dankarl (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

They are probably either by or works for hire of Henry Wellcome, and all came from his Washington DC office. The country of origin would almost certainly be the U.S. Nailing down a publication date can be fuzzy or impossible, but they are almost certainly PD one way or another. If they were released to the public domain by the Wellcome Trust directly, then it's basically PD-author. If the rights were transferred to NARA and they are simply releasing them, I guess it's basically the same thing. If they were published at some point, copyright likely expired earlier than the donation, or certainly since (I doubt NARA would bother renewing any copyright they owned). Perhaps we could go with PD-author for most of them, or a PD-because and link to the NARA collection. But NARA believes these are "Unrestricted" (i.e. PD) and since they are US works there is no good reason to doubt that determination. It's a matter of choosing a different tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)