Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/11

Question about URAA

I am a bit confused about what files are uploadable to Commons. As per this page, Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. Under this guidelines, I had nominated a file here for deletion, because the file is not yet PD-US. It was published in 1937, and as per this chart, it will remain in copyright in US for 95 years, i.e. till 2032. Author died in 1950, so the file was not PD in home country on URAA date. An admin closed the debate with the cryptic comment URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Can anybody please enlighten me whether non-PD-US files are uploadable to Commons? If so, then I can also upload some non-PD-US files that are otherwise very good on merit of content. Hrishikes (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

See COM:URAA: it was indeed decided that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. This doesn't mean that the files are free of copyright in the US - they aren't - it's just that we are still in the process of deciding how to deal with them. --rimshot^talk 17:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that there was no consensus on this subject, and that admins have gone back and forth editing it. You'll note that nobody has edited COM:L yet. It's not true that we are in the process of deciding how to deal with them; there's nothing going on here. The discussion has ceased; the WMF has declined to mess with separate servers outside the US, and deleting them from Commons has been rejected. This is it, until another war erupts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

At Commons:Licensing, as of this writing, the pertinent policy seems to be as follows:

Files affected by the URAA should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}.

Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.

--Gazebo (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the policy that Yann followed when closing that DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yann seems to have followed COM:URAA, which is currently outdated as it doesn't mention Commons:Review of Precautionary principle which overruled the part of COM:URAA which Yann depended on. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I think the closure of Commons:Review of Precautionary principle is in contradiction with the recommendations from the WMF, and the previous RFC. Therefore it doesn't close the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think famous works need careful consideration involving all aspects of the rules, because such works attract more attention. This work has a Wikipedia article, a cinematic version and a recent English version. Although, in principle, all files merit careful consideration. As I understand, WMF left the matter to the community, removing legal hurdles from the way. The opinion of the community is reflected in the Review of the Precautionary Principle. This being a user-managed site, the opinion of the community takes precedence, as long as the WMF does not veto it using a super-protect or some such. Hrishikes (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Cover of Teachings of Marx for Girls and Boys by William Montgomery Brown 1935.jpg

This image is a derivative of at least three separate works. I identified one of them and marked it on the source field. Can anyone find the other two?

I want to make sure this image should actually be housed on Commons; I'm particularly worried about the Stalin image, as most of those are unfree. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Marx head might be a flipped variant of File:Marx1867.jpg. Stalin from File:Stalin face.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding all 1185 files in Category:Die erste deutsche Bibel I

According to Template:Die erste deutsche Bibel I the author is William Kurrelmeyer. Accoding to VIAF and German WIkipedia he died in 1957. (2014-1957=57). In Germany the PD-old "rule" is 70+. Right now the information-template has {{PD-old}} on it which displays as {{PD-old-70}}, while it should have {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1957}} on it. Which would display that it is only PD in countries that has 50+ PD-old rules. Not Germany, where the book was supposedly published in.

The links to Gogle Books and WIkisource doesn't exist/work either. (Just FYI). Have I missed something, or should these files be deleted? Josve05a (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This may sound counterintuitive, but is Germany really the country of origin from a copyright point of view? The author apparently lived mostly in the USA and only visited Germany during summer months. If the work was prepared in the USA (see the work's introduction: it is signed in Baltimore) and only a copy was sent to Germany for printing, the country of origin could be the USA ("publication" in a wider sense does not require distribution by a professional publisher). Just some food for thought (IANAL). GermanJoe (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is a US work, it should simply be tagged with template:PD-1923. GermanJoe (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a US work. At least it was printed in Strasbourg which was then part of the German Empire, and published in Tübingen in 1904. While this would make it public domain in the US (pre-1923), it's not clear if and when the author acquired American citizenship. So there's a good chance that this is still copyrighted in Germany. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For a book, "publication" would indeed mean the books distributed by the professional publisher, in almost all cirucmstances. This is PD in the US, but I don't see any way it's PD in the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now nominated them for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Die erste deutsche Bibel I. Josve05a (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• NO DELETION. It is pd because it is a reprint of the first German Bible of from 1466 as it is statet in the first sentence of the Preface - File:Die_erste_deutsche_Bibel_I_0010.jpg. The publisher Kurrelmeyer has worked in the US from 1882 and made his PHD at the John Hopkins University an teached there until 1944. The only parts which are from Kurrelmeyer may be the preface. --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Since nobody said "don't delete" before, I went ahead and created a DR. Please bring your evidence to there (and why you removed my above message, I have no idea about). Josve05a (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Sorry I didn't remove it - it must be some accident. Please what is a DR --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 21:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  DR = Deletion request; see link above. Josve05a (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, i was a little to slow. --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 21:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

File:CHOjuaa 48.jpg

User claims this 2012 upload is "own work" but on the other hand the file is used on a wiki page of an artist who died in 1992. To further confuse the issue there seems to be an OTRS ticket. Weird. What do you make of it? Palosirkka (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The user probably made a photo of the painting her/himself. She/he may also be a heir of the artist. Ruslik (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Drawings made after photos

If someone makes a drawing based on a photo it would (probably) be a derivative work. But what if the drawing does not look like the photo? Or what if the drawing is based on several photos? I guess it would be a case by case discussion. So let me give a few examples:

A) As a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olav h hauge.jpg this file File:Olav_h_hauge.jpg was deleted because it was found that it was a derivate of this file. Do you agree? Or should we undelete?

And could

• B) nn:Fil:Olav H Hauge1.jpg and
• C) nn:Fil:Olav H Hauge2.jpg

be copied to Commons or are they too close to the photo above to be accepted?

In my opinion a file like

• D) no:Fil:Woody-guthrie-portrett.jpg is probably to close to this file and
• E) no:Fil:Johnlennon head-portrait.jpg to close to this photo.

Comments anyone? --MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Editors without elevated rights can't judge your deleted example, maybe this discussion should be on COM:AN. One case I'm aware of are maps drawn with the help of an aerial photo published by Google Maps (copyright by a 3rd party). I disagree with that interpretation for maps, but I'm not going to defend WikiMapia for other (copyright, unrelated to maps) reasons. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

True. But there are still 4 other images non-admins can see :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The copyright in a photograph is based on creative elements under control of the photographer. This can be things like the lighting, the angle chosen, the framing, and that sort of thing. If the photographer poses the subject, then that arrangement would also be part of the photographer's copyright. The subject object itself, however, is *not*. Simply using the information you see in a photograph to make another work does *not* make it a derivative work; that is not "based on" the copyrightable expression, but rather merely using the non-copyrightable information shown in a photograph. Using a Google Maps photo to identify objects on the ground, or even their shape, is not a derivative work at all. Google Maps does not own any copyright on the depicted items; only on the photograph itself (and that is only possible -- many of their satellite photos do come from US Government sources, though they pay for aerial photographs from planes as well).

So... for a derivative work, you are looking to see if the aspects particular to that photograph are present in the second work. One example was the Obama "hope" poster; that was essentially ruled to be a derivative work and and also not be fair use (technically only the fair use was ruled on, and the case settled before making the derivative work ruling, but the judge very strongly hinted that the artist would lose the case if not settled.)

I cannot see the first example, so no comment there. no:Fil:Woody-guthrie-portrett.jpg is definitely a derivative work of the photo you mention. no:Fil:Johnlennon head-portrait.jpg is also a blatant derivative work. nn:Fil:Olav H Hauge1.jpg and nn:Fil:Olav H Hauge2.jpg ... are probably too close, though it's a harder decision. They replicate the same facial expression (possibly part of the expression if the photographer was trying to elicit something like that, in a portrait setting) and also the same angle, a slight amount of the lighting, etc. So, it looks to be directly based on that one particular photograph, to me. But it is possible to make a portrait of a person using photographs as a guide, and have it not be a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Carl Lindberg. As I understand it if you paint on top of a photo it is a derivative work. If you make a drawing based on a photo with the same light, angle, face expression it would most likely be a derivative work but if you change the light, angle etc. then you are probably home safe.

As for the two photos on no.wiki (Woody and Lennon) we can't decide that they should delete them. But we can decide that if the photos are copied to Commons we delete them. --MGA73 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Claudine Renko (Earth-616).jpg

I have hard time believing this was commissioned by the Brazilian govt... What is to be done here? Palosirkka (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree - it looks like an obvious copyvio. Have nominated the image for speedy deletion. GermanJoe (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Old film posters question

I recently found some movie poster sites with posters from France, Germany and other countries. I'd like to enlarge what we have in posters for the non-English speaking wikis. I would be limiting this to posters before 1923, which would be covered by US-PD, but am wondering about anonymous works. Some posters aren't signed by the artist who created them and all we have is the name of the film studio and sometimes that of the print shop that printed the poster. In this case, can you invoke the "anon" since we don't have the name of a person but a company? Thanks, We hope (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, This is difficult. You need to know if the posters copyright is owned by the artist (or his/her heirs), or by the company who ordered it. And this is probably not public knowledge, and the company may not want to tell you. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the ones I'd be working with are before 1923, that information is probably even more difficult to get. Though I'd like to help out the other wikis with film posters, I think I'd just better concentrate on the ones from the US. Thanks, We hope (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Drawings by Kościuszko

I would like to upload some scans of drawings made by Tadeusz Kościuszko. Kościuszko died in 1817, so his works are certainly in the public domain in Europe. However, the book where I intend to take the drawings from was published in the U.S. in 1946 (Miecislaus Haiman: Kosciuszko - Leader and Exile. New York : Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, 1946). I have no idea when and where Kościuszko's drawings were first published, which is important for copyright status in the U.S. If we assume the 1946 book as the earliest publication, the drawings could, in theory, according to the Hirtle chart ("Works Registered or First Published in the U.S."), still be protected in the U.S. if copyright was renewed. However, I can't find a copyright renewal for this 1946 book in Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database. So, I think I can safely assume that Kościuszko's drawings from this book are PD in Europe (even taking into account a possible publication right) as well as in the U.S., right? But this leaves the question of which templates, exactly, to use for an upload: {{PD-old-auto}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}} in conjunction? Though I don't really know whether PD-US-not renewed is really applicable - even though the Haiman book is a publication between 1923 and 1963 and the copyright was not renewed according to the Stanford database, I have no idea when and where else the drawings might also have been published. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, not an overwhelming response... ;-) - I pinged Lupo, maybe he can help :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there's two ways to look at this issue:

• If the 1946 book is the first publication of the works, they were already in the public domain. Unpublished works are copyrighted for the life of the author plus 70 years, so copyright would have expired in 1887.
• If the work had been previously published, the publication would have to have occurred prior to 1887 for the publication date to matter. All works published before 1923 (either in the US or any other country) are in the public domain in the US.

So I think Template:PD-old-auto is the appropriate license. AHeneen (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, unpublished works never formally left copyright in the US until 2003; a copyright holder could apparently hold the copyright on an unpublished work indefinitely, as long as it was so held. A bunch of Mark Twain's works were published in 2002 and will be in copyright until 2047.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So Kościuszko's drawings could have been copyrighted in the U.S. starting with the book's publication in 1946, if they were never published before, but would be out of copyright now anyway as there was no copyright renewal for the Haiman book, right? What do you think of my idea to combine {{PD-old-auto}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}} in this case, Prosfilaes? Gestumblindi (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't object. I don't entirely endorse it--there are lots of scenarios here, and one could be more paranoid, but there's a reasonable argument that that would be too paranoid.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In theory, yes it's possible they are under copyright, even though I think that drawings did not even qualify for U.S. federal copyright in his lifetime. The drawings would have had to remain unpublished, probably still owned by heirs, all the way through to 1946. That is extremely unlikely though; the odds are rather high that either a) they were distributed without restrictions long before 1923 (PD-1923), or b) they were never published with explicit permission of a copyright owner and thus became PD in 2003 (PD-old-70). And if the 1946 publication was not renewed, that is most of the rest of the possibility (PD-US-not_renewed). I'd just pick whichever US tag makes the most sense to you. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Old British newspapers, when do they lose protection?

I have found in Internet Archive several copies of an old weekly newspaper called The Automotor Journal. The scans are marked Creative Commons license: CC0 1.0 Universal. Can I upload images from it and if so how do I calculate when British newspapers of other dates become free?

An illustration on this page (of Herbert Austin) is of special interest because free images of him seem to be impossible to find. If you follow that link you will see there are now no images at all in this copy. I downloaded PDF files of these issues a couple of months ago so I have the image(s). To me that suggests Internet Archive have become aware that the images are not protected but of course I might be quite wrong. Will I be in any trouble if I do upload these images? May I have a general rule to go by for old British newspapers / publications?

I can also scan old publications in our local library and upload those scans to Commons, what might be the restrictions on doing that? I have become aware that many curators of photographic archives are inclined to bluster to discourage this kind of behaviour because I used to be sufficiently naive to phone and ask if there were any copyright restrictions on images they had put online! Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The general rule is it is under copyright for 70 years after the death of the author. If the document is anonymous or if the copyright is owned by an organisation, the copyright expires 70 years after publication. There may be exception (government publications, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The British Library says:

For an unsigned or anonymous [newspaper] article: copyright expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or made available to the public. For example, a newspaper published in 1930 is out of copyright in 2001.

For a signed article: copyright extends until 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died.

Note that if you're accessing scanned papers through an online service, that service may have (non-copyright) T&Cs which prohibit copying. This doesn't apply for the Internet Archive, of course. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for this information which also lets me better understand other copyright info I have gathered up. However what is the situation with photographs by a professional photographer (presumably working for his own limited liability company) who died 50 (in this jurisdiction equivalent to 70 above) years ago last September. In about August this year (i.e. just in time) the archive concerned changed their notes to give his photographs an attribution to his limited liability company which (I have checked) was incorporated a few months before these particular photos are dated. So when does a corporate author lose protection? These are photographs of a school (not just its pupils' annual class pictures) so I think it is reasonable to expect/assume prompt publication. The law in this case would be New Zealand's.

(just had another look) now the file says as a headline "Creator unknown: Photograph of the staff of ... taken by (J Bloggs) Limited whereas in the finer print it says "Date: 1927 By: (James Bloggs 1465-1964)". Is someone trying to outsmart me? Do I just have a suspicious nature! Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand has a useful loophole for our purposes - the current copyright act, from 1994, establishes life + 50. However, pre-1994 work had a fixed fifty year copyright (fifty years from creation, not publication or author's death) and so any photograph taken before 31 December 1943 had had its copyright expire before the new act came into force. (See details here; Canada has a similar situation with pre-1949 photographs) Andrew Gray (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Andrew, and its good news too. Eddaido (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Licensing of leaked document

Can anyone help me with licensing issues of this file [1]. I posted the source and the licensing on the discussion page of the file but do not know how to deal further with the matter. Thanks. --Neudabei (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is a clear copyright violation. I don't think that PD-text applies, and given it is "leaked", the copyright holder clearly did not release it freely. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it has been released by the journalistic organisation ICIJ (wiki article: Luxembourg leaks) which publicised the document and licensed the document. -- Neudabei (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

i appreciate both views. it's a delicate matter. maybe the decision to delete or keep the document is of value for the future of uploading leaked documents to CC. best, Maximilian (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is related to a deletion request with additional comments. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

#2012082910006251 Henry Hazlitt image

I would like to obtain permission to use this image in a small booklet being written by my client, James R. Cook, titled Boom & Bust.

The booklet will be given away FREE.

What steps are necessary to secure permission?

thank you,

Scott Rosenman Visions Marketing 1300 York Road, Suite 320A Lutherville, MD 21093 443-275-2758 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.193.77 (talk • contribs)

Are you refering to this image? File:Hazlitt-photo.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Old" material from defunct organization?

I think I know the answer to this, but wanted to make sure. I have scans of a promotional brochure for a private school from the 1970s. The school has been defunct for 26 years. Original content creator(s) unknown. Brochure makes no copyright claims. Can I use these images on the wiki page about the school? I'm guessing I can't since I didn't create them, but wondered if there was an exception since the identity of the original creator is unknowable, and the creating organization no longer exists. Please advise. Thanks! Joebedford (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There are templates for known authors and dead for 100 or more years, another variant for 75 or more years, and a variant for anonymous works older than 1924. So that's not what you need for only about 40 years, but if it's some special case… Swedish photographs could be almost old enough. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Images from Victoria and Albert Museum

The Victoria and Albert Museum has a number of images of drawings by, or from the collection of, the 19th century Iranian architect Mirza Akbar here. As far as I can tell the images have not been previously uploaded.

Most of the images are geometric compositional studies of Islamic pattern design. The drawings are obviously out of copyright, but does Victoria and Albery Museum hold any rights to them that would prevent uploading to Commons?

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

They're {{PD-Art}}. I can't say whether or not the copies would be considered copyright in the UK, but Commons does not object to you uploading them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

San Diego Air and Space Museum

The files here have no known copyright restrictions and they were not originally published by the SDASM. As such they should not be identified as the author. Doing so has raised an expectation by the SDASM that they should be provided credit when these images are used. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Many of them could use metadata cleanup. But most any book will provide credit to the archive that provided them with the photos, and the least we can do for an archive that gives us a collection of photos is ask that reusers do give credit to them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think linking to the source file achieves that aim. That said, I agree credit is a courtesy, but not when the establishment then turns around and demands a licensing fee for commercial use. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Attribution}} with constraints

Does the file File:AviSynth logo Tray and AviSynth.png was uploded with "Permission to use and/or modify these logos is granted provided that your materials are related to AviSynth and you give an attribution to avisynth.org or avisynth.nl." statement copied from http://avisynth.org.ru/docs/english/license.htm. It sounds like {{Attribution}} license with additional requirement that use has to be related to AviSynth. Is this license compatible with Commons policies? --Jarekt (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was uploaded with such a permission, which is incompatible with Commons policies. (Only attribution requirement is allowed.) Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ESA-ROSETTA-NAVCAM}} (CC-BY-SA-3.0-IGO) vs Flickr (CC-BY-SA 2.0)

The European Space Agency has released their photos from the(?) Rosetta oo flickr. While doing so the made a press releas saying that they relased them under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo}}, which is also stated in every file description on flickr, see e.g. this.

But while doing so they choose the {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} license. I have updated some files to use both (see e.g. this) but what should be done with the template, {{ESA-ROSETTA-NAVCAM}}, and the resto of the photos in Category:Photos taken by Rosetta? Josve05a (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The 3.0-igo license is the correct one but that isn't available at Flickr. Thus they chose something that fits their needs best. Dual-license is OK not not needed. --Denniss (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Apperently, per discussion on IRC, in the press relesease, which I can't find atm, they expressly described why they did not chose the "normal" cc-by-sa license. This seems to have been a mistake on their part. Just double checking here... Josve05a (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, any NAVCAM image they release should be licensed with {{ESA-ROSETTA-NAVCAM}}. As Denniss says, that option isn't available on Flickr, but they have to choose *something*. Flickr really needs to get with the times and provide more licensing options. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am a bit uncomfortable tagging these images with CC-BY-SA 2.0, even if technically they are under that license. It was not the intention of ESA to use that license. May be we should suggest that they upload their images directly to Commons, where they could choose the right license. ;oD Regards, Yann (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A missing condition in templates

Copyleft templates like {{Self}}, at least its versions for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are missing a condition that a link to the used license must be provided when the work is used (this belongs to the attribution point). Unfortunately, this is omitted quite often by licensees. I feel we should add this. I agree it would make the text longer but it would make the conditions clearer. Miraceti (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Self works as designed. The source for CC-BY-SA (example) licenses is Template:Cc-by-sa-layout, and that fetches its text from various system messages MediaWiki:wm-license-cc-free-to-share-header and so on. Click on view source to see the effective system messages, not some local deletion log. In theory you can discuss system messages in the corresponding MediaWiki_talk namespace, click on discussion for a given message. You could spice it with {{Editprotected}}, but it will not work, because this really needs to be done for all MediaWiki projects in all languages in the source code, not piecemeal on commons. Plan B, a modification of Template:Cc-by-sa-layout, not much better for similar reasons. Plan C, submit a bug report. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for info about technical details. So the text to be changed is MediaWiki:Wm-license-cc-conditions-attribution-text. The bug is filed: bugzilla:73387. Miraceti (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, now I'm really curious what happens, anything from dupe over wontfix to solved with a 202x date is possible. ;-) I added an info on the talk page. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

FAL 1.3 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 declared compatible

Just FYI: now the most recent versions of CC-BY-SA (4.0) and Free Art License (1.3) have been declared compatible.[2] That means, "anyone remixing a work under FAL can license her remix under BY-SA." and "people can adapt works under BY-SA and license them under FAL" and "mix works under both licenses and license the resulting works under either license or both". However, this compatibility seems to be true only for mentioned, most recent versions, not for earlier versions of the licenses.[3] --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A good news for reusers and may be a bad news for people using FAL + CC BY-NC/ND to make their work a bit less free. :)

Adapted works of CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed work can be licensed to CC BY-SA 4.0; so I wonder how they can restrict this move to version 4.0 only. Jee 08:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA (3.0) and Free Art License (1.3) aren't compatible; you can't convert back and forth between them. You can convert 3.0 to 4.0 and then that license is compatible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Any CC BY-SA works (from version 2.0 onward, at least) can be adapted and licensed with FAL 1.3; any FAL 1.3 works can be adapted and licensed with CC BY-SA 4.0; not with any older versions. (There is no need of intermediate steps like CC BY-SA 2.0 > 3.0 > 4.0 > FAL 1.3) Jee 05:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: That doesn't seem right; http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses specifically states that CC BY-SA 3.0 is not compatible with any non-CC license. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 08:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Section 4(b) says you can use an adaptation of a CC BY-SA 3.0 work under a later version, basically. (I don't fully understand what it is saying.) Thus you can use it as CC BY-SA 4.0, and thus as any license compatible with the CC BY-SA 4.0.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

CC licenses don't allow sublicensing; every license comes from the original author (refer to [4] and [5]). Suppose that someone uses a CC BY-SA 3.0-licensed work (A) and releases a new work (B) under CC BY-SA 4.0. Someone who wishes to use B must comply with both licenses (CC BY-SA 3.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0), meaning that a derivative/adaptation of B cannot be licensed under FAL 1.3. The exception is if the part of B that includes A can be separated, leaving only CC BY-SA 4.0-licensed material. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:01, 15 November 2014‎ (UTC)

See License Versions Adapted material usable under conditions of adapter's license: "In version 4.0, CC added a provision in the ShareAlike licenses that enables downstream licensees to refer only to the adapter’s license when using adapted material that contains the copyrightable contributions of multiple authors. This feature is designed to minimize complexity for reusers where they are using a later version of the ShareAlike license or a compatible license as their adapter's license. In 4.0, users need only refer to a single set of conditions contained in the last license applied to reuse adapted material, rather than parsing the conditions of the original and other adapter's licenses (to the extent the licenses differ)." And they stated that they intended it in earlier versions too: "Prior to the 4.0 versioning process, CC had not always been clear that the ShareAlike licenses stacked just as they stack for the BY and BY-NC licenses, and reasonable minds do differ on this point. CC believes, however, that this is the best reading of its all of its licenses that permit adaptations prior to 4.0 and, now, has made that explicit in version 4.0." Jee 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Apparently I wasn't reading closely enough. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Does it work ex post facto, for FAL files uploaded before the change? Can I post a composite of two old files, one that was licensed as FAL, and another as CC? Retired electrician (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Túrelio, didn't read your last line properly before posting. However, there may be a second opinion - ?? Retired electrician (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Retired electrician: I believe it is ex post facto; what Túrelio was referring to was old versions of the licenses. An old file under FAL 1.3 and an old file under CC BY-SA 4.0 can be combined, but not an old (or new) CC BY-SA 3.0 file. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 08:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Argentina law 22963 (regarding maps of Argentina)

Hello, following this change [[6]] by @Rosarinagazo: i researched a bit, and found this hopefully correct citation at the Spanish Wikipedia at [7]:

Cito una ley argentina:

Ley 22963 PODER EJECUTIVO NACIONAL (P.E.N.) del 3 nov 1983 LEY DE LA CARTA CARTOGRAFIA OFICIAL. Publicada en el Boletín Oficial del 8 nov 1983, Nº 25295

Resumen:

LA REPRESENTACIÓN DEL TERRITORIO CONTINENTAL, INSULAR Y ANTÁRTICO DE LA REPÚBLICA ARGENTINA, EDITADA EN EL PAÍS EN FORMA LITERARIA O GRÁFICA CON CUALQUIER FORMATO Y FINALIDAD, ASÍ COMO LA PROVENIENTE DEL EXTRANJERO DESTINADA A SER DISTRIBUIDA EN EL PAÍS, DEBERÁ AJUSTARSE ESTRICTAMENTE A LA CARTOGRAFÍA OFICIAL ESTABLECIDA POR EL PODER EJECUTIVO NACIONAL A TRAVÉS DEL INSTITUTO GEOGRAFICO MILITAR. (hoy Instituto Geográfico Nacional)

Checking the archives, I found no previous discussion, please point me to it, if any exists. I have a few questions:

• Could a Spanish speaker translate (Google works, but only like 50 percent) the quote please? It seems to forbid any maps, that somehow (how?) differ from official maps?
• Does this law influence Commons' stance on hosting such maps? Frankly, is it forbidden, discouraged or allowed?
• Should or can an uploader / editor delete own maps with this notice as reason?
• Should we add a notice about this legal situation in Commons:Copyright rules by territory? GermanJoe (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't speak Spanish, but this doesn't seem to be a copyright-related matter, right? If Argentina law indeed says that you're not allowed to create maps of Argentina that "differ from official maps", I think we could proceed in a similar way as we do with regard to the Italian law regarding "cultural goods" with the template {{Soprintendenza}}. This is a non-copyright restriction, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. So, I think we could have a template for Argentina maps that says something similar ("Wikimedia Commons is not required to comply as it is hosted in the United States of America. Users who are citizens of Italy are warned that they are solely responsible for any possible violation of local laws"; replace "Italy" with "Argentina"). But first we need Spanish speakers to confirm, of course. Certainly I don't think that we should delete "unofficial" maps of Argentina if there's no copyright issue. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I speak Spanish. This does not look like a copyright restriction. This law states that “[a]ny representation of the continental, island, and antartic territory of the Republic of Argentina, published in the country in literary or graphic form in any format and for any purpose, and so those comming from abroad with the intention to be distributed in the country, must strictly conform to the official cartography stablished by the National Executiva Power through the Militar Geographic Institute”.

So I think that a own map can not be deleted as the map is not actually being published in Argentina but in United States, where the Wikimedia Commons are. In any case, if the map “strictly conform[s] to the official cartography”, then it can not be deleted. Allan J. Aguilar (Ralgis) 04:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, that's reassuring. When it's not a copyright issue, a simple note in the image information should indeed be enough (as it's currently handled). I like Gestumblindi's idea of a template for it - would allow to add a few standard clarifications and a link/quote of the actual law. GermanJoe (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This is about the Falklands vs. Malvinas dispute; commons is not a stakeholder. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've found a better citation for the law, and it seems to imply that all maps produced in or imported into Argentina must be approved by a government agency; the website of said agency seems to say as much. This is much stronger than simple conformity. But yes, I suppose this is a non-copyright restriction. Is someone already working on a template? If not, I'll make it. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A template would be helpful imo (and seems nobody is working on one yet). While we shouldn't give legal advice, a clear translation pointing out the potential legal issue (even if only within Argentina perhaps) might help re-users to make their own decision. GermanJoe (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Cover Art of a Song

How can I upload the cover art of a song to use in an article? Is there any possible way? -- 21:21, 19 November 2014 Wikimusic7

You can upload fair use files to Wikipedia (not Commons). Note that the image could only be used in the article about the album. See w:Help:Files for more information. -- Brianhe (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Legislative map

Before I upload, I just want a check on this map for uploading: http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d7959ea6-3b38-4be0-8c57-65094eb901c2/wild-olympics-wilderness-and-wild-and-scenic-rivers-act-map-2014-intro.pdf It has a commercial GIS company's imprint on it. But it is the official map for proposed U.S. federal legislation, text of which is printed by the Government Printing Office and refers to the map[8]. I found the map hosted at the sponsoring Senator's official website [9]. Brianhe (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of photo taken by US Government contractor

If the photo referenced in Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:CF-1_flight_test.jpg had been taken by a US military officer or enlisted person then it would be in public domain. However the person who took the photo is Andy Wolfe, who appears to be an employee of Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is the company that sells the F-35 to the government. It is unclear to me if the photo is public domain because of Lockheed Martin's status as a government contractor (especially if their contract with the government says that photos produced in close connection with the contracted work are the property of the government), if the copyright is owned by Lockheed Martin, or if Lockheed Martin donated this image to the public domain by allowing the US military to publish it at the link originally provided as a source for the photo, which is now a dead link. What do others think? --Pine^✉ 09:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Regrettably, the original source-site is no longer available. Captions like "courtesy of Andy Wolfe/Lockheed Martin" would have been a clear indicator of the photo not being PD-USGov. However, one might try to contact Wolfe via ISAP. --Túrelio (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The new source URL is http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=97631 (all Navy photo description page URLs were changed...no idea why they didn't simply do a redirect). Also note this image is on the Navy's Flickr stream at https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/5438832203/, along with extensive EXIF data. Both give a credit line of "U.S. Navy photo courtesy Lockheed Martin/Released". I would suggest this is properly copyright Lockheed Martin. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Now the facts are rather clear. However, instead of simply deleting it, would somebody be willing to ask Andy Wolfe for a permission/release under a CC license? --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The additional issue: is the image copyright to Andy Wolfe, or copyright to Lockheed Martin? As Wolfe appears to be a LM employee, and photos were presumably taken during the course of his duties as Multimedia lead, I would assume copyright would fall to LM and he wouldn't be able to choose a license himself. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, it's likely easier to contact him than LM. Being a pro-photographer he would know about pitfalls. --Túrelio (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Point well taken. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It would almost certainly be a work for hire of Lockheed Martin. But, the company may have agreed to let the photo be distributed by the Navy, which may imply a PD-author situation, or at least CC-BY, as the U.S. Navy image page says. I doubt they would put the page up on their Flickr stream under that license if they did not have the rights to do so. It even says "U.S. Navy photo" which implies some ownership so the rights may have been transferred. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The military branches, NASA, and other U.S. Government entities routinely use inappropriate licenses in Flickr. Most use a Cc-by or even All Rights Reserved for their own images, in direct violation of U.S. law; or they host outside entities' copyrighted work under a free license. The displayed Flickr license on any given image is absolutely a terrible way to judge the validity of said image, at least when posted by a U.S. Gov acct (ESA, on the other hand, does a fantastic job of managing their licenses). — Huntster (t @ c) 21:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough on the too-restrictive licenses; however, virtually always images released by the official Navy etc. channels have had their rights cleared, and are generally assumed public domain one way or another. It is labeled a "U. S. Navy photo", which does imply they control the rights (or there are none anymore). It would be great to get clarification but I'm not sure there is enough doubt to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy to xxx is a clear indication it's not their own image and does not fall under USGov copyright regulation. These images should be tagged as no permission (or if new uploads deleted on sight). Remember, these images are only free if made by a direct USGov employee.--Denniss (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• It may be that Lockheed Martin released the image to the US Government and the public through an arrangement something like CC-BY. Thinking about this from Lockheed Martin's point of view, they probably want publicity photos of their work to be distributed widely. Would someone who is familiar with contacting press offices be willing to contact the US Navy and ask them to clarify under what terms Lockheed Martin released the photo to them for publication? --Pine^✉ 07:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

We can't assume anything here, we need a verified license. That's why these courtesy images are not accepted here at all unless a permission is received via OTRS.--Denniss (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy of xxx is a clear indication that it was not *authored* by the government, correct. So, technically, it is not PD-USGov. However the "U.S. Navy photo" does seem to indicate the *ownership* is with the U.S. Navy, at which point they can license it as they wish, and the general assumption for images in that photo stream is public domain, as has long been indicated by their privacy page statements. (And yes, of course we assume things; we need to on just about every image we have. It's just a matter if the doubt is significant.) If it was truly an image there only by permission, I would expect a much clearer rights statement indicating reuse permission must be sought elsewhere, and not a claim of "U.S. Navy photo". The technicalities may be different but I still don't see a good enough reason to delete. The terms of that particular Lockheed contract may also transfer rights, who knows. I would almost never delete an image from that photo stream labeled "U.S. Navy photo", basically, unless there is an indication that there is a separate rights owner. They know what the assumptions of use are for their images and I don't think would put an image there which had reuse conditions without very clearly labeling it. By all means, it would be good to get better license information, but I don't think it's a significant enough doubt to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"U.S. Navy photo" does not indicate anything, that's a standard term slapped over almost every image they use on their site. This is more an indication which military branch is responsible for operating with this image. We had too many cases (not only Navy) where this term was placed on clearly copyrighted images. Many initial F-22 and F-35 images were labeled this way but also courtesy Lockheed/Boeing and metadata proved it to be a clear copyright violation. --Denniss (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Denniss' explanations. Given the vast number of U.S. Military, NASA, and other government photos that we host and that get uploaded every day, I wonder if it might not be prudent to develop a Commons: namespace page where consensus on how to handle this thing could be clearly established, and eventually to which DR discussions could point. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Photos going through the main US Navy photo stream are rather different to me -- at the very least they were consciously submitted to that stream. Images from other sites, sure, and maybe if there is obvious foreign source, but not stuff knowingly submitted for publication on that stream, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible mass copyright infringement

I'd like someone with some Russian language skills help with verifying King Muay Thai's uploads. It seems quite unlikely to me that the pictures he's uploading are his own work. However, since I can't read Russian I cannot verify this. If the files aren't his, is some kind of mass deletion possible? I know how to use the copyvio template but don't feel like adding it to all of his uploads. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You could raise the matter at COM:AN/U... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

DR created. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Shop signs in Japan

The file in question

I'm not sure of the threshold for shop signs in Japan. Is File:Shinjuku 14 (15112430933).jpg OK or not? If not, can I solve it with a Gaussian blur over the small representation of a pig? - Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

PD-Text applies to most of the sign, the pig is de minimis. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reuse and adaptation of SVG images

I have been uploading large numbers of SVG files to Wikimedia and used to illustrate horse-racing related pages on Wikipedia.

The uploaded files are licensed (more by accident than design) as CC by SA 3.0

I have now been contacted by a commercial organisation, saying that they intend to adapt my SVG template and so create similar SVG files for use on their own site. Their question to me is "How would you like your attribution to be added to the SVG source files we make?"

Can you advise? -- 22:00, 20 November 2014 81.164.131.25

That's somewhat up to you. I presume that you don't want to be credited as "81.164.131.25". Just tell them what you do want to be credited as... AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

At least they asked. I've seen CC by SA 3.0 SVG images I've made and uploaded to Commons being sold on commercial web sites without any attribution or similar licence - or they are attributed to someone else - and none of these people ever asked. Cfynn (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Misdated file - copyright question

Image:Drapeaux_1929.jpg is clearly not from 1929. The "ONU" (United Nations) and Pakistan did not exist untill after the second world war. Does this make the PD of claim of life + 70 dubious enough to put up for deletion? 104.229.138.240 20:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The image is used on a discussion page in the French Wikipedia, fr:Discussion:Protectorat français au Maroc, the uploader mentions there "Larousse du XX° siècle, 1929 (éd. révisée 1949)" as a source, so this table seems to be from the revised 1949 edition of the book. At least the description should be changed accordingly; I'm not sure whether this simple compilation of flags is copyrightable? The flags of the Vatican and of Switzerland have the wrong shape, by the way (should be square). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Larousse Encyclopedia flag chart page seems to have contained errors -- and sometimes strangenesses -- for a large chunk of the 20th century. See en:Talk:Flag of Mandatory Palestine for a recent edit war caused by a bizarre entry in the 1924-1939 Larousse flag chart pages. The 1965 Larousse still shows the Swiss flag as rectangular! (Corrected by the time of the 2004 Larousse, thank goodness...) AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, for now I have changed the description to reflect that these flags are from the 1949 edition. The next step would be to rename File:Drapeaux 1929.jpg, but I think before this, I'm now opening a deletion request so we cann discuss whether there's anything copyrightable in this table of flags. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin

I uploaded in good faith File:Henson NHS 2.jpg from the English Wikipedia. However the name Tony White does not appear on the link provided. Therefore I have doubts about the copyright. Even more confusing is the copyright situation with File:UncleTomsCabin.jpg. Could anyone verify or delete these files, please? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you ask the original uploader? Ruslik (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Africa Center for Strategic Studies

Hi. This organisation was founded and is funded by the US Department of Defense. Their website (http://africacenter.org) doesn't list any copyright information. Can I assume that their images would be covered by a PD-US-Gov license? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You cannot assume that all images on that website are in the public domain. This is easy to confirm, as one of the images currently on the front page is a screenshot of a CNN broadcast.

It's important to understand that {{PD-USGov}} is not a license. A copyright license is a statement that gives someone the right to use a copyrighted work. {{PD-USGov}}, by contrast, indicates that the work in question is legally exempt from copyright protection. It only applies to works created by officers or employees of the United States Federal Government as part of their official duties. It does not apply to works created by volunteers, independent contractors, employees of independent agencies. It does not apply to works created by government employees while off duty. Most importantly, it does not apply to content from other sources such as stock photo agencies or news outlets, even if they appear on a government website.

That said, I'll leave it up to others to comment on whether the ACSS is part of the US Federal Government in the sense relevant here. (It looks like they might be part of the National Defense University, if that helps.) I notice that the photos in their Flickr stream are marked as "© All Rights Reserved". —LX (talk, contribs) 20:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Accepable?

Are these photos acceptable?

The photos are both based on IE11 , but I am a bit doubtful whether the file is acceptable because it includes portions of the MediaWiki website. Just the other day , I was given a notice for a similar picture that contained a picture of MSN India. --Leaderboard (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

MSN India is a completely non-free web site, so of course you can't upload screenshots of that to Commons. The Mediawiki website is free, so screenshots of it may be uploaded here. The icons from the browser and desktop environment may be problematic. For File:Feed description in IE11.png, that's easily addressed by cropping it. File:Feed showing in IE11.png would probably be best recreated using a free browser (e.g. Firefox or Chromium). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that these photos are to be used in the wikibook Internet Explorer and so I can't follow your suggestion to use Chromium/Firefox for File:Feed showing in IE11.png. I'm not sure either to crop the browser in File:Feed description in IE11.png , as it is probably an important part in this wikibook.--Leaderboard (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a reason I think fair use should be allowed on Wikibooks. Writing about non-free products becomes quite frustrating when you cannot use the obvious illustrations. But that discussion has to be had over there (it seems wikibooks:en currently does not use local uploads). --LPfi (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement

This photo: Klaus Iohannis on Wikicommons is identical to this one: Klaus Iohannis on Informatia Zilei It seems quite unlikely to me that it is photo's uploader own work. --Skyfall (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. There are other sources as well: antena3.ro, agerpres.ro, evz.ro, etc. Obviously not entirely the uploaders own work but a modification of an unfree work from external sources. --Martin H. (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)