Commons talk:PD files/Archive 1
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page. |
Contents
- 1 File:Gloedelampe.jpg
- 2 File:EndurancePic.jpg
- 3 File:Athens-FIR.jpg
- 4 Images from PDFnet
- 5 File:Kensington Runestone Kens3.gif
- 6 File:Hejaz revenues cover-1921.jpg
- 7 File:PipingPlover23.jpg
- 8 File:Gce-leed.jpg
- 9 File:Toulon Railway Station-1861.jpg
- 10 File:Eisenhower 68-40-67.jpg
- 11 File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg
- 12 Remove the PD review pending cat
- 13 The spotted seal photos
- 14 LORAN coverage charts
- 15 File:Reo-emblem.jpg
- 16 File:HH logostort.jpg
- 17 File:Flyvevåbnet-OF4.gif
- 18 Naval Historical Center
- 19 All PD?
- 20 George Bain collection
- 21 National Archives
- 22 Commons:Free media resources
- 23 DefenseImagery.mil
- 24 Splitting up by tag?
- 25 Perry-Castañeda Library
- 26 Images that fail PD review
- 27 General question about "non-profit" claims
- 28 Just PD?
- 29 Other license reviews
- 30 Scope of project
- 31 Category / template for verification
- 32 Commons:PD files#Determination of public domain in US (and copyrights)
- 33 4 Yugoslav images
- 34 File:Samuel Reshevsky versus the World.JPG
- 35 File:Shoho damage.jpg
- 36 5 images up for review
- 37 File:Zaren-og-Poincaré.jpg
- 38 File:Nachruf Franz Betschart.JPG
- 39 File:SMS Zenta1.jpg
- 40 File:Benedict Calvert.jpg
- 41 Could you also review templates?
- 42 34 Yosemite pics
- 43 Bio.congress.gov
- 44 File:Ar95.D-OHEO.JPG
- 45 Issue over PD-Art for paintings in UK
- 46 Category:The Commons
- 47 Image review - File:Żołnierze bawarscy pocz. XVIII w..jpg
- 48 File:Jugoslavija1929 banovine.jpg
- 49 File:Bellerive Hotel Kansas City Missouri.jpg
- 50 File:Folly Theater burlesk.jpg
- 51 File:Nestorius.jpg
- 52 File:Manhattan Bridge Construction 1909.jpg
- 53 File:YB49-1 300.jpg
- 54 File:A-4 VA-45Det1 CVS-11 intercept Moss NAN8-73.jpg
- 55 File:Bridgeport seal.png
- 56 Alfonso Capdeville's image
- 57 File:Battle Hymn of the Republic.ogg
- 58 File:Canthigaster rostrata inflated SI.jpg
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This was listed for PD review in the request a review category. It's old and a drawing of a common object, but I'm not familiar with Danish law. See the history of tag changes. Any input? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Denmark is in the EU, so it's {{Anonymous EU}} + {{PD-1923}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll tag it, thanks you should sign up as a PD reviewer. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The alleged uploader of this file on en wiki does not exist. How to verify it? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I checked w:en:Special:Contributions/Abroomhe. He logged in for one day only in 2006, he edited only one article, w:en:HMS Endurance (1967), and uploaded only this image. Sv1xv (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. So he may have taken it but we don't know and can't contact him. I did a google image search but could not find it. So it's possible. Thoughts? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- AGF. Uploader exists, stated it was his own image, released it as {{PD-self}} himself,[1] and there's no contradicting evidence. So why question this image at all? Lupo 06:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I posted the request as a test case for transfers from Wikipedia to Commons. Soon the image on Wikipedia shall be deleted and some of the evidence about its copyright status will be lost. Sv1xv (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's reasonable to question a photo by an individual that seems to require special setup (in this case, a well-positioned boat). His characterization of himself as "ex Royal Navy" in the Author field lends this some credence. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I posted this here was to determine in this early stage of PD review's existence just what our standards will be and where we draw the line on cases such as this. I'll leave this here for a little more input. It seems to me at this point that the consensus is it's PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am more suspicious if an uploaded photo is of professional quality or if the photographer is a professional. If we simply assumed good faith on such an occassion, what is to prevent someone from scanning a photo from a niche publication, upload it under an account (named as the photographer), and never edit under the account again? The impetus is on the project to offer materials that are offered freely, not stolen goods. For this case though, judging from the angle at which the subject is focused on, I believe the photo is taken on board a Lynx helicopter from the Endurance. The photographer is either a Royal Navy personnel or one of the research crew. Whether Alan Broomhead is indeed the uploader (and if he indeed is the photographer) is a matter of faith (at least it is not a joke name).[2][3] The photo's texture (cross-hatched patterns) suggest it was a scan, possibly of a matte photograph; at least it is not from a newspaper or gloss-page magazine. All in all, evidence suggest the uploader could be who he claimed to be. I would not oppose others from AGF for this photo (hence letting it stay on the servers), but as I said earlier, it would be on a case-by-case basis. Maybe one of those "file was nominated for deletion but concensus agreed for it to be kept" templates (like w:Template:Oldffdfull) would be better served for those images. Jappalang (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I posted this here was to determine in this early stage of PD review's existence just what our standards will be and where we draw the line on cases such as this. I'll leave this here for a little more input. It seems to me at this point that the consensus is it's PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alan Broomhead's claim of authorship is mainly supported by the fact that the photo he uploaded has not showed up on any official or private web site. Even my own photo of HMS Endurance has been used somewhere [4], without attribution. Sv1xv (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it showed up at the HMS Endurance Tracking Project and this personal site in reduced form. Something just popped into my mind. If a Royal Navy personnel took the picture, should it not be under UK Crown Copyrights (note the 50p stamp on the personal site show a remarkable resemblance to the photo as well)? Jappalang (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- If your image was used without attribution, should you not remind the site (HMS Endurance Tracking Project) of it (politely first)? Jappalang (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I did, using an on-line contact form. [5]]
- Sv1xv (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alan Broomhead's claim of authorship is mainly supported by the fact that the photo he uploaded has not showed up on any official or private web site. Even my own photo of HMS Endurance has been used somewhere [4], without attribution. Sv1xv (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- And today I received a reply from them, asking for specific instructions.
- Sv1xv (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Update: Today they added the attribution and sent me a note. Sv1xv (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- If it's Crown Copyright, it would not be PD, at least not yet. Are Brit gov pics Crown Copyright even if the taker was not an official photog for the Navy? As to these "I took it myself" cases, there is a degree of AGF here, the question is, where do we draw the line? I think we have to do it case by case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe being an official photo for the Navy would not suffice in this case. The only way that this is PD is if it is a self taken/released image, as claimed. This is a good example of the borderline cases we will be dealing with. I don't think the similarity to the 50p stamp is cause for concern (as there are some differences, i'd put it down to coincidence). However the author removed a "(self)" label from after the author, which begs the question "Why?". I believe this is the "Alan Broomhead", and it says he is a Royal Navy Aircraft engineer, so I think the person who took the photo is Alan Broomhead. Now the only question is did the wiki account belong to Broomhead. The user name suggests so, as does the editing profile, article of self interest. All things considered, in this case I would probably give it the green light as being public domain. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do I understand this correctly, unlike America where a US GOV photo is PD, in Britain they're not? So if this guy took it FOR the Navy, it's not PD but Crown Copyright but if he took it for himself it is PD? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- For Crown Copyright it would depend on the age of the photo, but yes you are right in that is not automatically PD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do I understand this correctly, unlike America where a US GOV photo is PD, in Britain they're not? So if this guy took it FOR the Navy, it's not PD but Crown Copyright but if he took it for himself it is PD? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe being an official photo for the Navy would not suffice in this case. The only way that this is PD is if it is a self taken/released image, as claimed. This is a good example of the borderline cases we will be dealing with. I don't think the similarity to the 50p stamp is cause for concern (as there are some differences, i'd put it down to coincidence). However the author removed a "(self)" label from after the author, which begs the question "Why?". I believe this is the "Alan Broomhead", and it says he is a Royal Navy Aircraft engineer, so I think the person who took the photo is Alan Broomhead. Now the only question is did the wiki account belong to Broomhead. The user name suggests so, as does the editing profile, article of self interest. All things considered, in this case I would probably give it the green light as being public domain. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it's Crown Copyright, it would not be PD, at least not yet. Are Brit gov pics Crown Copyright even if the taker was not an official photog for the Navy? As to these "I took it myself" cases, there is a degree of AGF here, the question is, where do we draw the line? I think we have to do it case by case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Summary
- Alan Broomhead is a real person who has served in the Royal Navy as a helicopter engineer.
- Abroomhe, a contributor on Englishi WP claiming to be Alan Broomhead, uploaded the photograph of HMS Endurance, claimed copyright on it and released it to the public domain. The same contributor has only contributed information about the allocation of helicopters to HMS Endurance.
- The image uploaded on English WP is a scan of a color print and of reasonable size, with a side ratio of approx. 15:10. It was not scanned from a magazine or other printed material (postcard, brochure).
- Until this day the photograph has never appeared elsewhere, and has not been published by the Crown. Only exception is a lower quality copy by the HMS Endurance Tracking Project, who also display another Wikipedia picture of the same ship.
My view is that we may accept the authorship claim and the susequent release to the public domain as genuine. Sv1xv (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. This isn't the strongest case but I can support putting our PDr tag on it. And we should copy this whole thread to the image talk page. Any more input? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest to do so (copy thread to image talk page) and implement a switch in the {{PDreview}} template that can point to the talk page and thread. Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll ask Rocket000, the coder. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest to do so (copy thread to image talk page) and implement a switch in the {{PDreview}} template that can point to the talk page and thread. Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. This isn't the strongest case but I can support putting our PDr tag on it. And we should copy this whole thread to the image talk page. Any more input? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Done No further comments during the last few days, so I added {{PDreview}} and I am copying the discussion to the talk page. Sv1xv (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have included some background info in the talk page of the file. The author original uploader claims the picture is free of copyright. I have not found it online but I suspect it is a copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- This looks like an official map and unless it can be shown to be PD, I think we should call it non-free. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
As the uploader admits, the current "Attribution" license tag is wrong. I shall replace it with a tentative {{PD-because|}}, until we decide how to deal with it. Sv1xv (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is a scan of a map, which has some routes marked with a highlighter pen. Greek copyrights in Commons:Licensing state that federal text (declarations and laws) are in public domain, but has no clarity for federal art. The map of their Flight Information Region (FIR) should thus be copyrighted by the government for 70 years since publication. Even if the map has been released to public domain, the flight routes are given (drawn) by individual companies and associations. Therefore a map of their routes are copyrighted. Thus, it is very unlikely that this chart is in public domain (it might be freely distributed to airline pilots and private fliers, but that does not mean it is in public domain). Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, we need to un-PD this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Rlevse. I would like to add that there is no indication this chart is/was published by the central government (not federal- Greece is not a federal state), as it is not marked with the Hellenic C.A.A. logo. If it was attached to a circular or similar text, especially if published in the government Gazette, it would be free. But this one is possibly a drawing by a private firm.
- On a related subject, the term "public domain" does not exist in some european legal systems. The greek law states that "The protection afforded under this Law shall not apply to official texts expressive of the authority of the State, notably to legislative, administrative or judicial texts...". This is the reason the template "PD-self" has the clause "In case this is not legally possible: ". Sv1xv (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Result
The review has failed to prove that the image is in the Public Domain. Also it was not created by the original uploader but is a scan of a chart from an unknown source. Lacking a "PD review failed" template, I mark the file as "No source" {{Subst:nsd}} and {{PD review result}}. Sv1xv (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Tks, I've copied to the image talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Images from PDFnet
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
We have two color photographs, transfered from da-wiki, claiming to be public domain, as copied over from w:da:http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruger:PDFnet. Unfortunately they don't have any of the following:
- name of photographer
- date (but they are obviously recent)
- A link to the file stored in PDFnet
One of them is a relatively simple photo of a rape seed press, the other is an artistic photo. BTW, these two are also the only images in Kategori:PD-PDFnet on da-wiki.
I searched for both of them with tineye.com but they were not found elsewhere. I also did not find them in the first pages of the results of similar-images.google.com, although I did not search thoroughly.
PDFnet has a policy for uploading images [6]. As I am not familiar with the Danish language, I cannot navigate easily on PDFnet to find the original uploads and I cannot check the details of the policy. Could someone help?
Sv1xv (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I reviewed the rape seed press one, as I verified the source. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the "artistic photo" you spoke of: Rlevse approved it, but
I think it needs re-reviewing asthe source (from PDnet)iswas for a different image than the one on Commons. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) - I have found the correct source and re-reviewed the image. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
We have a new one, a scan of a black & white photograph of a runestone, submitted by User:MGA73. Lets start with the main issues:
- The runestone itself is PD (pre 1923 in the USA)
- We are not told much about the photographs. Who and when? Assuming they are post-1923: Are they work for hire (copyright lasts 95 years) or by an anonymous photographer acting on his own (copyright lasts 70 years, so has expired around 2000) ?
Sv1xv (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- It says taken circa 1930, we need to know more. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- The photo was copied from The Kensington Runestone. This page indicates the Runestone Museum [7] as the source of the photos. (Runestone Museum, 206 Broadway, Alexandria, MN 56308, Phone: (320) 763-3160, Fax: (320) 763-9705, Email: bigole@rea-alp.com). Sv1xv (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, an interpretation of 3D arts could be that the slab qualifies with its cracks, chips, and uneven surface along with the etchings, but I jest; the intention of the author is plainly to write a record for all to see. If that is so, I question the use of {{PD-Art}} for this image. It is a record of history in an ancient writing, or are we going to tag scripts in ole English as art as well? I am puzzled the source points to Alexandria Technical College, calling it the Runestone Museum—an old link perhaps? Nonetheless, I am not certain if even {{PD-Scan}} should be used for this... It is a 3D object, but functions plainly as a written record. I would be more comfortable in knowing that the creators of the photo release it into public domain or license it for free use. Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- What are we going to do here? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think we need more opinions; what say Rambo and the rest? Jappalang (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- What are we going to do here? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, an interpretation of 3D arts could be that the slab qualifies with its cracks, chips, and uneven surface along with the etchings, but I jest; the intention of the author is plainly to write a record for all to see. If that is so, I question the use of {{PD-Art}} for this image. It is a record of history in an ancient writing, or are we going to tag scripts in ole English as art as well? I am puzzled the source points to Alexandria Technical College, calling it the Runestone Museum—an old link perhaps? Nonetheless, I am not certain if even {{PD-Scan}} should be used for this... It is a 3D object, but functions plainly as a written record. I would be more comfortable in knowing that the creators of the photo release it into public domain or license it for free use. Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm on the fence. At first I was inclined to say this work is "too three-dimensional" to qualify for PD-Art - the etchings certainly cast shadows. But it's only slightly three-dimensional - and we always allow a small degree of texture, even on paintings. Significantly, the PD-Art page specifically lists "cave paintings" as an example that's not PD-Art, because the surface of cave walls ain't flat enough, but this is a flat tablet. I think we could go either way. With any luck, the photo will be out of copyright soon enough itself. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is definitely a photograph of a 3D object with creative lighting etc. We don't know the photographer (or if it is anonymous work) and the year, although we know it is post-1923. Also we don't know its copyright registration history (if there was any) or if it was work for hire. No way to tell if it is PD. Sv1xv (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can see both sides of this but if we go with the wiki concept "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain", then it'd be PD, but if we go with a strict interpretation that the author could still be alive or it hasn't been 70 years, then no. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, this was not an easy choice. This is my fourth rewrite, having changed my mind each time. The lighting seems very neutral, and it can't really be taken in a much more 2D way. There is no frame to speak of and there will always be a bit of shadow with an image of an un-even runestone. However, I'd be tempted to fail it due to this: "When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted". I realise this seems strict, however listed in the examples is a photo of a coin which fails. Having read the arguments for coins, the majority apply here too, and I guess, as such, this fails. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- The points on cave paintings and coins are persuasive, and it would be wiser to fail this (it would become PD from 2011, so those interested in this photo could wait?). However, how do we go on from here? Do we just tag it with {{Copyvio}} (without a link to here as advised by Mike.lifeguard), or send it to Request for Deletion? Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- PLease send to RFD. I'll put the failed PDR tag on it now. I've posted this to the talk page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- The points on cave paintings and coins are persuasive, and it would be wiser to fail this (it would become PD from 2011, so those interested in this photo could wait?). However, how do we go on from here? Do we just tag it with {{Copyvio}} (without a link to here as advised by Mike.lifeguard), or send it to Request for Deletion? Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, this was not an easy choice. This is my fourth rewrite, having changed my mind each time. The lighting seems very neutral, and it can't really be taken in a much more 2D way. There is no frame to speak of and there will always be a bit of shadow with an image of an un-even runestone. However, I'd be tempted to fail it due to this: "When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted". I realise this seems strict, however listed in the examples is a photo of a coin which fails. Having read the arguments for coins, the majority apply here too, and I guess, as such, this fails. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- (outdent) Sent to RFD. Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say thank you all for your good work. I did not upload the image - just requested a PD-review. We had the same picture on dawiki and could not decide if the picture was free. --MGA73 (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to let people know that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kensington Runestone Kens3.gif has brought up another interesting point of view. It might be worth watching this debate to see what the precedent is for these kind of cases. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 18:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Whomever sees the debate end, pls post results here. THanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- This was closed as delete. However the major factor seemed not to be the originality of the 3D stone image, but the fact that the deep relief (engraving) on the stone's facet made it a 3D object (like a coin). Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 00:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Whomever sees the debate end, pls post results here. THanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I submit this scan for review because its source is not permanent (it is from an online auction). Any objections? Sv1xv (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is the problem with eBay links: they cannot be cached (webcitation, archive.org, and Google cache cannot do so). Other than that, unlike established stores, what guarantees the claims on the piece as authentic? The item can be the verifiable source, but I fail to see the postmark here that it is "a 1921 cover posted with Hejaz Railway revenues of 1918 issue". Can someone who understands the language verify? Jappalang (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- You may also see the postmarks on the backside of the envelope [8] with date 4-5-21 (1921-05-04) in western digits. The auction page is at [9]. The base stamps (the only artwork on the item) were issued in 1918 and the stamps with the specific overprint on 1921-01-10 (Ottoman year 1337) according to Ottoman Turkish Empire Revenue Revenue Stamps of the Hejaz Railway by Steve Jaques, 2009.
- Sv1xv (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Year of issue of stamps also confirmed in PULKO Osmanli imparatorlugu ve Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Posta Pullari Katalogu 2006, ISBN 975-93009-7-4. Sv1xv (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Upload the image of the back of the envelope as well (to be "proof" of the post mark) and link the images together. Put on the talk pages our discussions and indicate that the images came from eBay (with information on the auctioner, and the date it started). We cannot cache eBay links, and I believe this vouching of the existence of this link is what PD files is for. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- In similar cases the PD review also protects the file from flase copyright claims by the auction seller or buyer, on the basis of ownership of the object. Some people claim copyright on 2D works just because they scanned it. (copyfraud) Sv1xv (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Back side of cover with more postmarks is here: File:Hejaz revenues cover-1921-back.png. Sv1xv (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I have a collection of public domain images from Artnet, an auction site for fine art, and I generally trust the author and date information on these works - but I admit, eBay may be another matter. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
For the above image this is the source. However, I don't think the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission counts as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee. The USFWS states that content on their site is not necessarily PD. I was going to put this as a PD-failed but just thought I'd check first. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 20:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nebraska is a state, not part of the federal government. State PD laws are often different. We need more info on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's got a federal tag, the tag is wrong for sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here the image it doesn't pass PD review, but should I fail it, IfD it, or just {{Wrong-license}} it with a note on the talk page? Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- This disclaimer makes it plain that not all images on the site are in public domain, and this shows that Nebraska Game and Parks Commission works are copyrighted. Use {{Copyvio}} with those two links. Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that second link was new to me and pretty helpful. I have tagged as you suggested. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've tagged with the "failed PD review" tag too. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that second link was new to me and pretty helpful. I have tagged as you suggested. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- This disclaimer makes it plain that not all images on the site are in public domain, and this shows that Nebraska Game and Parks Commission works are copyrighted. Use {{Copyvio}} with those two links. Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here the image it doesn't pass PD review, but should I fail it, IfD it, or just {{Wrong-license}} it with a note on the talk page? Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's got a federal tag, the tag is wrong for sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nebraska is a state, not part of the federal government. State PD laws are often different. We need more info on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoever tagged it with {copyvio} and pointed here needs to not do that. If it needs discussion, open a DR - copyvio and speedies is for stuff that needs no discussion whatsoever! — Mike.lifeguard 02:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This has been brought up for review. I think it is pretty obvious that {{FAL}} does not fit this image. It might be a propaganda picture by Franco's government but I kind of doubt that falls into the "Legal or ruling dispositions and their correspondent projects, resolutions of jurisdictional organs and acts, agreements, deliberations and reports of public organizations" as stated in Commons:Licensing#Spain. The blogsite probably took it from http://www.sbhac.net/, so we need someone conversant in Espanol to navigate and tell us what information it can provide over this image. The artist definitely signed the image (right border where it intersects with the arms) and there is some more words at the bottom right that I cannot read. Jappalang (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- yea, shaky. I've asked Spangineer to help. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- It does indeed come from sbhac.net ([10]). Created in 1936, the artist is Vicente Vila Gimeno, and as of 2003 he was still living. There's no licensing information for the particular image that I can see. Based on the content of the poster it looks official (The Ministry of Public Education), and it presumably was posted widely in public, but I'm not convinced that that means that it fulfills the requirements at Commons:Licensing#Spain. For what it's worth, at the bottom of sbhac.net, it says, "No use la información y las imágenes aquí depositadas con propósitos profesionales o frívolos", roughly, "Don't use the information or images included here for professional or frivolous purposes". A pretty clear prohibition on commercial uses, but more than anything probably just an attempt by the organization to protect its collection. Still, I don't think this qualifies as public domain or copyleft. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 05:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Any other thoughts? Since this is neither a piece of art permanently installed in the public, nor a piece of legislation, I think we can safely call this a copyvio? Spain abides the 70 year pma, and the author is still alive. Jappalang (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I say go for the copyvio. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Me too. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I say go for the copyvio. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Any other thoughts? Since this is neither a piece of art permanently installed in the public, nor a piece of legislation, I think we can safely call this a copyvio? Spain abides the 70 year pma, and the author is still alive. Jappalang (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- It does indeed come from sbhac.net ([10]). Created in 1936, the artist is Vicente Vila Gimeno, and as of 2003 he was still living. There's no licensing information for the particular image that I can see. Based on the content of the poster it looks official (The Ministry of Public Education), and it presumably was posted widely in public, but I'm not convinced that that means that it fulfills the requirements at Commons:Licensing#Spain. For what it's worth, at the bottom of sbhac.net, it says, "No use la información y las imágenes aquí depositadas con propósitos profesionales o frívolos", roughly, "Don't use the information or images included here for professional or frivolous purposes". A pretty clear prohibition on commercial uses, but more than anything probably just an attempt by the organization to protect its collection. Still, I don't think this qualifies as public domain or copyleft. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 05:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done Jappalang (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Any objections for this file? Further info in [11] and [12]. I would like to pass it through PD review, just in case it is removed from that web site. Sv1xv (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Reviewed. Changed PD template to {{PD-old-100}} since the creator died more than 100 years ago. Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. If more files from this collection and by the same photographer are uploaded, I shall also PD-review them, to keep them safe in the future. Sv1xv (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Why are we using a {{PD-old-100}}? France is {{PD-old-70}}... Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Update: I PD-reviewed the following files by the same photographer, all in Category:Édouard Baldus.
- File:Viaduc_de_Roquefavour.jpg
- File:Édouard_Baldus_-_Approach_to_the_Mountain_Pass_at_Donzère.jpg
- File:Édouard_Baldus.jpg
There are two more; the uploader claims they are by the same photographer, but I must see a source before reviewing them.
Sv1xv (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the last two, did you contact the uploader? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, Jappalang found the source for the last one and I found an idependent connection of File:Pontdugard.png to Baldus on http://worldheritagesite.org/sites/pontdugard.html , although I don't know if this file still exists and in which collection. Sv1xv (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This is a tough one that I am not certain over... http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/gallery10.php says it is a public domain image, but the site later claims it may not be...[13] Eisenhower Library admits to hosting copyrighted images.[14][15] If they are taken on the 1952 campaign trail, the photos might not be taken by federal employees but by journalists or Eisenhower's own aides (are the latter federal employees)? Jappalang (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- For everyone's info, Nixon and Eisenhower made very few joint appearances during the 1952 campaign. That narrows it down, and the call signals on the radio mics make it clear this was the rally in Wheeling, WV on September 24, 1952, the day after the Checkers Speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great detective work. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Very unlikely for this one to be work by or on behalf of the US federal government. Sv1xv (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good powers of observation. I don't think this is likely to be PD, so it should probably be failed. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Failed and brought to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eisenhower 68-40-67.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Brought up by request, I doubt it can be public domain, because it came from Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, which stated that some photos are copyrighted.[16] Nixon's Library also states that his pre-Presidential photos are copyrighted.[17] Jappalang (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just found that we used to have a {{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}}, but it has been deprecated due to this issue (ref: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio). Jappalang (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- This need to be non=-PD'd and the link to that copyright statement posted on the file page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, and think it needs failing. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- This need to be non=-PD'd and the link to that copyright statement posted on the file page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Failed and sent to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Remove the PD review pending cat
Reviewers, please remember to remove the "PD files for review" category when you place the final tag on the file, whatever the result is, this temp cat needs to be removed. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The spotted seal photos
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I am passing the Spotted Seal photos. They are taken by Rolf Reams of the NMML.[18] I am not certain if {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} should be used since the labs working for the agency like to differentiate themselves, but I am sure they are federal bodies. Jappalang (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is part of the NOAA, so that would be the right tag, unless a more specific one is created. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
LORAN coverage charts
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have uploaded two charts showing coverage of LORAN networks worldwide dated 1997. They are from a 2006 issue of DoD General Planning supplement for aviators (Flight Information Publication or FIP), published by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. It was freely distributed until October 2006, but NGA distributes only to registered DoD users after that date. The two charts are in PNG format, saved from the original PDF file using GIMP. The filenames are File:NGA-Pacific Loran.png and File:NGA-Atlantic Loran.png. I still have the PDF file, but it is too large (12 MBytes), however I could upload or e-mail the cover page (100k PNG format) if someone has doubts. Sv1xv (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- See here for cover page: http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8411/ngofipgpcover.png Sv1xv (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- While I am fairly sure they are federal works, are there any other pages in the document that credit the creators of the graphs/maps/illustrations? Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are no specific credits for information sources or graphs etc. The artwork of the two graphs follows the standar style of other NIMA/NGO FLIP documents. BTW, because the graphs were created in 1997, an attribution found elsewhere (copies of these charts from an older FLIP issue) could credit the "National Imagery and Mapping Agency" (NIMA), as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency was named between 1966-2003. Sv1xv (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Does this sort of thing really need a review? I don't think there is much anyone can actually verify without seeing the actual publication for themselves, but maps published by a federal government mapping agency seem obviously PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, for two reasons: The source is no longer available online since October 2006. Also the credit and copyright notices exist on the cover page of the document and not on the chart itself. After a few months someone could file a deletion request for these charts and it would be difficult to refute it. However I agree with you that not every US federal government document needs a PD review. For example, it is not needed for this image File:Mv-world.jpg, coming from the same source, as it contains all source infromation and credits. Sv1xv (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will just pass those two. Discussion copied over to their talk pages. Jappalang (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sources going offline is never a reason for deletion. You would have to show the stated source is likely incorrect, and that there is probably a non-federal-government copyright owner. If that happens, then any review decision here based on the assumption it is government work is meaningless. I guess the title page has that odd copyright claim though... trying to claim copyright in the rest of the world? Still quite obviously a work of the federal government, if the provided info is correct. Still, posting the original URL is often helpful, as it may be archived somewhere (though probably not in this case). For example, this is the original download page, it looks like. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's part of the reason this project was created. People were saying "the URL is no longer available, so I can't verify it's PD, so PD is an invalid tag". — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is a pretty awful reason for deletion requests, IMHO. We assume under good faith that uploaders are telling the truth, and only delete when there is some indication that is not true (or the uploader misinterpreted copyright law, or something along those lines). This particular review request is also relying entirely on user-provided information, so I don't see how independent verification is possible (though it would seem to be obviously PD-USGov). Wikipedia references also aren't deleted when they go offline, for similar reasons, and I don't think any associated content is suddenly deemed unverifiable. It would probably be good to mention something about this on the deletion request page -- unless it is a recent upload, the disappearance of a source shouldn't be a valid reason for deletion. The wayback machine also archives a lot of stuff, often making it more easily verifiable. It doesn't hurt of course to get independent verification, if people want to provide it -- every bit of info always helps. On the other hand, we could just recommend people adding the source URL to WebCite or something so it has a better chance of being verifiable. Or even making a tag to notify a bot to come along and submit external URLs to WebCite (their FAQ page even asks for someone to write a wikipedia bot to automatically add source URLs). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's part of the reason this project was created. People were saying "the URL is no longer available, so I can't verify it's PD, so PD is an invalid tag". — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sources going offline is never a reason for deletion. You would have to show the stated source is likely incorrect, and that there is probably a non-federal-government copyright owner. If that happens, then any review decision here based on the assumption it is government work is meaningless. I guess the title page has that odd copyright claim though... trying to claim copyright in the rest of the world? Still quite obviously a work of the federal government, if the provided info is correct. Still, posting the original URL is often helpful, as it may be archived somewhere (though probably not in this case). For example, this is the original download page, it looks like. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is not "relying entirely on used provided information": I have uploaded the cover and currently I can e-mail or upload the whole 12 MB PDF book. However the 2006 FLIP is already obsolete and I may throw the CD-ROM away. Or it may become unreadable (damaged), or even incompatible with future optical disk readers. Sv1xv (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The wayback machine and Webcite cannot archive some links. Certain sites have requested them not to do so (e.g. eBay, worldroots) and the Wayback Machine itself only archives pages of sporadic dates. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, everything helps certainly -- just try to make sure that "lack of PD review" doesn't become a reason for deletion... Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The wayback machine and Webcite cannot archive some links. Certain sites have requested them not to do so (e.g. eBay, worldroots) and the Wayback Machine itself only archives pages of sporadic dates. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I'm not so sure this qualifies. Comments? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously I am not an expert, but it seems the copyright status of the logo depends on the details of copyright registration in the USA. Sv1xv (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. This requires a search through the US Copyright Office to assert that its copyright was not registered or has expired. However, as this is a logo, it might have been registered as a patent, trademark, and copyright with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Jappalang (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Odds are it was a PD-ineligible logo in the first place. The letters certainly aren't. It would also need a visible copyright notice... don't see one, and it seems rather unlikely. Trademark isn't relevant here, and it would be expired. Here is the record; it was registered in 1906 (and thus pre-1923, though it was just for the non-copyrightable letters) and expired in 1988. Should be PD for multiple reasons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- So what is the best tag? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Odds are it was a PD-ineligible logo in the first place. The letters certainly aren't. It would also need a visible copyright notice... don't see one, and it seems rather unlikely. Trademark isn't relevant here, and it would be expired. Here is the record; it was registered in 1906 (and thus pre-1923, though it was just for the non-copyrightable letters) and expired in 1988. Should be PD for multiple reasons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- We have two options, {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, depending on the date it was introduced. Also {{PD-US-no notice}} could possibly apply based on the old US copyright law, if the logo has never been published with a © notice. Sv1xv (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'd go with the 1923 one since we know it was before 1923. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- We have two options, {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, depending on the date it was introduced. Also {{PD-US-no notice}} could possibly apply based on the old US copyright law, if the logo has never been published with a © notice. Sv1xv (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- PD-US-no_notice applies if it was published even once without a copyright notice before 1978 (and most likely before March 1, 1989). Under pre-1978 law, it had to appear on *every* copy or copyright was lost. The photo is probably copyrightable, so that is the main tag, whatever that license is, and needs to be left there. The letters are not copyrightable, and I doubt the extremely basic shield in back is either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, then pls make it happen. This discuission should be copied to the talk page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the licensing statement already there is perfectly accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, that's a GFDL tag. The tag needs changed. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is for the expression in the photograph itself, which is likely copyrightable and needs such a license. That much needs to stay there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then we need to fail this PD review. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? It is described as "own work", so the presumption is that the uploader took the photo. It's been on wikipedia since 2004. If the photo was grabbed off the net, that may be different, but that may be hard to prove at this point. It was listed here because someone thought that it was a derivative work and thus the uploader had no right to (solely) license it with GFDL in the first place. Unless it is considered a copy, the expression in the photograph *always* has to be licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, that's a GFDL tag. The tag needs changed. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the licensing statement already there is perfectly accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, then pls make it happen. This discuission should be copied to the talk page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- PD-US-no_notice applies if it was published even once without a copyright notice before 1978 (and most likely before March 1, 1989). Under pre-1978 law, it had to appear on *every* copy or copyright was lost. The photo is probably copyrightable, so that is the main tag, whatever that license is, and needs to be left there. The letters are not copyrightable, and I doubt the extremely basic shield in back is either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- (outdent) I think Carl is saying that the emblem is in the public domain. The photo, however, is the uploader's creation. Hence, while the emblem is public domain material, the photo has to carry its own license. In this case, Hans Jørn Storgaard Andersen took a photo of a public domain logo and released the photo under GFDL. Jappalang (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that is accurate. Thanks for explaining it better. The licensing info in the upload is also accurate to that effect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that mean it fails PDR then? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was under the impression the listing here was about the copyright (if any) of the pictured object. The photo itself has never been claimed to be PD. It wouldn't "fail", but maybe it means it shouldn't have been listed in the first place -- not sure what the listing criteria is. The query on the image's talk page was about the underlying copyright though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I transfer all ok images from dawiki to commons and Nillerdk help me to check the bottransfer (ok sometimes I transfere a few bad pictures but then we delete them again and hope no one sees it). We were unsure if it was ok to take a picture of the logo. Hans Jørn Storgaard Andersen put GDFL on everything he takes pictures of, but that is only valid if the logo itself is free. Just like when taking pictures of art and statues. We hoped you could help us deside if the logo itself is free. If not the image must be deleted. Hans is not active on Wikipedia anymore due to some disputes, but we have no doubt that he took the picture. --MGA73 (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was under the impression the listing here was about the copyright (if any) of the pictured object. The photo itself has never been claimed to be PD. It wouldn't "fail", but maybe it means it shouldn't have been listed in the first place -- not sure what the listing criteria is. The query on the image's talk page was about the underlying copyright though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that mean it fails PDR then? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that is accurate. Thanks for explaining it better. The licensing info in the upload is also accurate to that effect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think everything would be clearer on why Rlevse is suggesting a PDR failure if we move to the section below (Scope of project). For my part, on reading his explanation, I think we need a new parameter for {{PDreview}}: rejected. Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could someone more familiar with art images than I please close out this image's tags as appropriate? It'd prob be good to copy this thread to its talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just copied the this section to the image's talk page and updated its reasoning for the logo per the link provided by Carl above. I removed the for review category, since per below, I think it should be rejected until we sort the issues out. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could someone more familiar with art images than I please close out this image's tags as appropriate? It'd prob be good to copy this thread to its talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Does the club allow any use of their logo (including derivative designs) or just fair use in news reporting etc? Sv1xv (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Google-translated phrase ("Want to use our logo, this can be downloaded from here") is too vague to be of any use. Jappalang (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. If there are no objections, this one fails PD-review and must be tagged with {{Npd}} (no permission). Sv1xv (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Go for it. There are some other Danish ones in the review cat too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. If there are no objections, this one fails PD-review and must be tagged with {{Npd}} (no permission). Sv1xv (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This one claims to be a modification of Image:OF3_RAF_Squadron_Leader.gif, which is copied from [19]. That source is Copyright (2009) International Encyclopedia of Uniform Insignia Association. Therefore the current image is derivative work of a copyrighted artwork and the uploader has no right to release it under a PD license.
However, someone may claim that the drawing is very simple and consists of geometric shapes plus white color grading which is automatically created by most programs.
My view is that File:Flyvevåbnet-OF4.gif fails PD-review. Do you agree?
Sv1xv (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, fail. It's a rank insignia. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Trying to understand. Does that mean, that all rank insignia should be deleted or is it because it i copied from somewhere (or at least the ones from Category:Badges of rank of the Royal Air Force that is copied)? In an other way: If I or someone else make a new copy from scratch would that do? --MGA73 (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I said rank just so people know what it is. The problem is it's a derivative of a copyrighted image. Now American military ranks are PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Trying to understand. Does that mean, that all rank insignia should be deleted or is it because it i copied from somewhere (or at least the ones from Category:Badges of rank of the Royal Air Force that is copied)? In an other way: If I or someone else make a new copy from scratch would that do? --MGA73 (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Naval Historical Center
It should be "Likely PD source" instead of a confirmed source ("Known PD source). They state that it is to their best knowledge that the files are PD (similar to the advice the Library of Congress gives for the "no known restriction"). The questionable images on the NHC are those that are donated (without specification of authorship or by commercial entities), which run into problems with first publication or death of author (since the images likely may not created by federal employees). Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also related is the deprecation of {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}} (ref:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC). Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- That deprecation was three years ago. See today's info which says "2. All information on this site is in the public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." Sounds pretty clear PD to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting... the info page was updated 14 August 2006 (which was before the deprecation in October 2006). The Online Library page is last updated 25 February 2009 and still bears the "To the best of our knowledge, the pictures referenced here are all in the Public Domain, and can therefore be freely downloaded and used for any purpose." This is somewhat repeated on the Scope page, which is last updated on 05 February 2009. If, however, the images are all accepted as public domain material, with what do we tag those images that were donated by non-federal employees and may not be published before 1923? Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think that all depends on if it it's decided they are PD. If they are accepted as PD, then they should be tagged PD. All three places show that the intent of the site is to post only PD material. This is a good case for just where do we draw the line. I've tagged some pics, not any NHC ones yet, that are rock solid PD just now -- pics from 1800's and one form a gov site taken by an Army photog. See our category for tagged pics. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting... the info page was updated 14 August 2006 (which was before the deprecation in October 2006). The Online Library page is last updated 25 February 2009 and still bears the "To the best of our knowledge, the pictures referenced here are all in the Public Domain, and can therefore be freely downloaded and used for any purpose." This is somewhat repeated on the Scope page, which is last updated on 05 February 2009. If, however, the images are all accepted as public domain material, with what do we tag those images that were donated by non-federal employees and may not be published before 1923? Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- That deprecation was three years ago. See today's info which says "2. All information on this site is in the public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." Sounds pretty clear PD to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the NHC should be added. The NHC may be a source of PD images of U.S. naval vessels, but much of their materials on e.g. German warships must be considered German works that would still be copyrighted in Germany. For instance NH 71318 or NH 86214, or in fact any of the Tirpitz photos. These images may be PD-US, but that's entirely irrelevant here at the Commons, as these are not U.S. works. Lupo 12:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I'll place it in the "likely" category with an explanation. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
All PD?
Would all PD files need a "reviewed" tag, or only those that are questioned? -- Deadstar (msg) 11:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- PD review files are not REQUIRED to have a PD Review tag. Think of it more as "insurance". — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
George Bain collection
There might be issues with this collection as the LoC uses the "no known restrictions" as their "99% sure no problems will arise from the use of this image" card. Personally, I would consider pre-1923 images in their collections as PD (by their word that they have been published in the news), and those that are marked as copyright expired. However, it seems several Commons users (and administrators) have approved of {{PD-Bain}}, so the concensus lies in the direction of its validity (ref: w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2009#Nassau class battleship). Hopefully this clears up the situation with the license. Jappalang (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I was aware of this. IMHO I think we can consider Bain files PD. Is this OK? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Despite my personal tastes to exclude Bain photos that are not marked as pre-1923 or expired copyrights, concensus seems to point the template as valid for all the collection's images. Unless its validity is overturned through concensus, we should live with it. If an individual image is proven to be non-PD through evidence, then it would have to be deleted from here on the basis of that proof. Jappalang (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
National Archives
To head off certain arguments, note the deprecated {{PD-USGov-NARA}} and its recommendations on how to classify the licenses for files in the Archives (ref: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-NARA). Jappalang (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good point thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Are we just creating another of this list (albeit moderated)? Free media resources is currently a mess and quite a few of its links are not providers of "free content". Jappalang (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did not know of that list. If it's a mess, let's not mimic it. I'd only like to see solid recources here, sites like LOC and NHC, while not all of their stuff is PD, most is and they have good reputations. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
DefenseImagery.mil
As stated, this repository hosts several images that lack clear information for public domain. Notable examples are photos of the EP-3 involved in the collision over Hainan. These photos were taken by a Lockheed Martin employee;[20] some of the shots on DefenseImagery reflect this, but others (duplicates) indicate them as Unknown. An aerial shot of another EP-3, File:EP-3E VQ-1 2001.jpg lists its creator as Unknown at DefenseImagery, but was clearly attributed to the Navy in the archived link. The discrepancies back up the caution DefenseImagery advised in their terms of use. Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. Are you just mentioning this or did someone improperly use the PDR tag? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, just pointing out specific examples here, in case someone brings up an opinion that "the site hosts only photos by military personel". Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Splitting up by tag?
I was thinking, because it takes different background and expertise to evaluate e.g. PD-USGov vs. PD-Art, it might make sense to split up the PD review category by PD tag. What do you think? Dcoetzee (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it's a valid PD image, it's a valid PD image, so I'm not sure the tag needs to be different. However, we could denote what subfields reviewers are specialists in on Commons:PD_files/reviewers#List_of_PD_reviewers — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Perry-Castañeda Library
Good place for maps, but there are some copyrighted maps there. Note that {{PCL}} has been deprecated in light of this. As for their Portrait Gallery, so far what I have seen are in public domain due to their publication before 1923 (through the "SOURCE" link on each page). Commons has {{PD-PCL-portraits}} for their images, but I think it should be deprecated in favor of {{PD-old}} and {{PD-1923}} since the sources are provided readily. Jappalang (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Images that fail PD review
Basically if an image fails a PD review (like the example above seems to):
- a) Should "we" as PD reviewers nominate those images for deletion; and
- b) Do we have some template like {{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-fail-recent}} to use, that would also possibly categorise failed images.
Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Again, Rocket000 did our coding, I'll ask him. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- In most cases a failed PD review leads to a result of "Incomplete licensing information" {{Nld}}, "Missinog source" {{Nsd}}, "Missing permission" {{Npd}}, or even {{Copyvio}}, which are already covered in Commons:Deletion policy. So the new template "PD review failed" should somehow integrate with the existing deltetion tags. In addition, an image which fails PD review should go in a special Category, pending deletion or whatever. Sv1xv (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
General question about "non-profit" claims
I have seen this on a few government websites. For a specific example, this image has the message:
- "You may use any of these photographs for your personal use (school projects, educational activities, etc.). As a courtesy, we encourage you to credit the photographer. NONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS MAY BE USED FOR PROFIT!"
However, {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}} and their statement suggest it is public domain. Wikipedia requires that there is not a "no-commercial" tag for Flickr images. Doesn't stating that the image "may not be used profit" suggest they still have a say about the image, and therefore it isn't properly released into the public domain? I'm pretty sure the image is PD, so have I misunderstood something, or is it possibly a scare tactic by the website to prevent the image appearing everywhere? Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think we have to help them (Forest Service) a bit here. They are asking people to donate their photos altruistically, hence the moral duty to avoid exploitation on these donations.[21] However, they conflict themselves by, like you said, declaring information on their site as public domain,[22] and telling people to donate copyright free images.[23] Perhaps an inquiry/feedback should be sent to them to clarify the matter (get them to update their site or something). Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- A lot of websites that offer public domain images try to impose illegitimate restrictions on their use for a variety of reasons (exploitation as an income source, wanting to be the go-to source on the Internet for the images, and so on). It's worth carefully evaluating their claims, and preparing for any ensuing hostility. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just saw Commons talk:Copyright tags#U.S. National Register of Historic Places images: "Never mind - the Park Service has indicated to me that they don't have releases, and despite the public notice on their individual files and the blanket notice on the website, they cannot actually release the images into the public domain." I think it is a similar case to Forest Service here, the agency asked for users to donate their photos, but ultimately has no accounts of the uploaders' surrendering their rights. Jappalang (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Just PD?
I noticed this which makes me ask a question I've been thinking about for a while. Are we just reviewing public domain images? Images tagged with CreativeCommons, GFDL, etc. do not claim to be public domain, because they are not. Copyleft images are different to public domain images (about), but do people think we should also be reviewing these as well. The same arguments stands for why these need reviewing like PD images, it is just we would need different templates (or make the current ones adaptable) if we were to start reviewing these types of licenses as well. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 18:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Usually CC and GFDL are own works licensed by the uploader or stuff copied from Flickr. Special cases are covered by Flickr reviews or OTRS. I don't expect to have too many such images for PD review. However, we may adapt the templates for these types. Sv1xv (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- We'd have to change our page names which I really don't want to do, or have "sister" pages for them. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Other license reviews
Besides PD files and Flickr files, we also have files imported from other sites and claimed to be under a free license. Examples would be files from Panoramio (some of the images there have acceptable CC licenses, e.g. File:Okinako haitzartea.jpg) or from ipernity (e.g. File:Chateau Foix kurtsik.jpg). For the time being, I've created {{LicenseReview}} for these, but it sure would be good if we had a process similar to the automated Flickr review for these. (The template could also use some autotranslation, if anyone wants to do that—I judged it too complicated to tackle.) Lupo 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Scope of project
The scope of this project is Public Domain. In the REO image thread immediately above and elsewhere, the question of allowed CC and GFDL images has come up. I also just found this image: File:Brown pelican - natures pics.jpg which has a CC tag, tagged as PD Reviewed. This is clearly wrong as it is not a PD image. It may be a free image, but it is not PD. All this brings up at least three issues:
- Do we want to start reviewing any image
- If we expand our scope, we'd need more templates made so we don't have the brown pelican image problem
- renaming the project
- — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think that it is a great project, so I hope for a wider scope. I understand, that the lack of templates can be a problem. You could either make new template as you need them, or you could make a "unisex" template. In my view almost all sorts of files can need a review. Then there is the amount of work. Well in the long run it should be less work to check the file once and for all instead of 25 people looking and checking as they see the image. --MGA73 (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Alternatively, if we restrict ourselves to review images that are tagged with PD licenses, we should either:
- have a new parameter—rejected—in {{PDreview}} to signify a requested GFDL or CC tagged image is out of our scope, or
- simply remove the requested image from the category.
- After reading the above, I am inclined towards the view that tagging CC and GFDL as a public domain image (PDreview passed) would be inappropriate. Jappalang (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The photo itself can't be tagged PD. It would have to be in a subsection where it is clearly labeled that the license (and review tag) only apply to the pictured object, and not the photo. This is often done with two tags, one labeled "Photo" and a PD tag labeled "Statue" or something like that. This is one argument for having a separate "Licensing" section outside of the Information template; a lot of info can pile up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Derivative works are always complicated... in those, you have the original copyright, and then you have the additional copyrightable material added by the second author. The original author has the right to prevent the distribution of that derivative work, so the copyright on the original is still very important. So, the question is do you accept images where it is only the original copyright portion which is under PD review (the photo itself, as the derivative work, would also have to be licensed but that is usually not a dispute). This is the case for the REO image above. There are tons of complications around them (such as freedom of panorama, de minimis, and what qualifies as a derivative work), and it's probably not appropriate to encompass all of that here -- otherwise it may be just duplicating Commons_talk:Licensing or regular deletion requests (although the naming of "review" does seem much nicer and less antagonistic than "deletion").
- On the other hand you could go in the direction of having this project validate PD status, or other licenses, where the documentation only really exists on single websites, and therefore which may go away at any time. A lot of works (such as the REO image above) can realistically be researched at any time, as there is a lot of information around the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Scope or not, if you're reviewing a file that is not PD but claimed to be under some free license, and it passes your review, why not just use {{LicenseReview}}? C.f. #Other license reviews above... Lupo 06:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Firstly, sorry for tagging the image inappropriately. I completely agree we should not be tagging CC etc. as PD. I do however think we should have a capability to review all images. I mentioned this before and still think it is a good idea, but we would need new (sister?) pages etc. LicenseReview isn't all covering at the moment because it requires a url for a source, so I believe another template (or adaptation) would be needed. Hopefully we can get this going as well. We can either change this project to a kind of all encompassing "License review" page, with different review categories, templates etc. or try and make a similar parallel page. Either is fine with me but I think we should do one of these options. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 09:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm okay with reviewing any free image and tagging it, but I think we should do it under "sister" pages and with tags specific to that license. Rocket000 did our PD templates, which were rather complicated he said. I think he would not mind doing more for us. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Category / template for verification
I just nominated File:Serbian children from KZ camp Jasenovac.jpg for review. After that I found out, that there is a whole category with similar files Category:PD-Yugoslavia. First step should be to verify the template / the statement and if that is OK, then the files could be checked. You could also look here Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/11#Image:Funeral_of_President_Tito_on_08_05_1980.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- The template was apparently created during this deletion request. It has been questioned at Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 12#Template:PD-Yugoslavia, Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 17#.7B.7BPD-Yugoslavia.7D.7D, Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 17#Template:PD-Yugoslavia, and has also been seriously questioned at en: Template_talk:PD-Yugoslavia; the last one is the only place where some defense of it was raised. It sounds like it would be limited to state-produced material only, and even that is cloudy. I really don't know. It is possible that such works would be considered simultaneously published in all successor nations, which may mean the shortest of all those those terms apply (per Berne Convention). There was some agreement about dividing the assets of Yugoslavia but I haven't really looked into it, and I'm not sure it talked about copyright. I also have no idea what the copyright regime under the old Yugoslavia was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to invite comments and corrections for this section.[24] Should PD files have this section? Jappalang (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Very usefull. After all possible cases are covered, it must be drawn in flowchart form. This is a subject of general interest to most users and should eventually become part of Commons:Licensing. Sv1xv (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have corrected some details and added others. Please take a look. Jappalang (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
4 Yugoslav images
Anyone familiar with Yugoslav PD? There are 4 from World War II in "Category:PD files for review" right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also see Commons_talk:PD_files#Category / template for verification. --MGA73 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am of a mind to fail them all. What is this 1998 law the uploaders are claiming of? Even if believed, "published in all school books" in which year is a boggling question. If published in 1970, then that photo's copyright is extended to 2020. Regardless, the verifiable piece of law comes with the Succession agreement. In that event, only documents of Yugoslavian laws and official rulings are in public domain. Rest of the works have to abide with the successor state laws. Since we are given no authors, let us treat it as anonymous and since no verifiable date of first legal publishing is given, then the pictures have not been published. Circulation of the photos on the web by the copyright holders in this case can be treated as first publishing (but the uploaders fail to even state the official site), which in this case can make the year from 1990 to now, certainly qualifying the anonymous photos as still in copyright. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Suggest copy this to their talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done, tagged as failed with this to the talk page. Ditto with other WWII Yugoslav pics that were tagged for review. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Suggest copy this to their talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am of a mind to fail them all. What is this 1998 law the uploaders are claiming of? Even if believed, "published in all school books" in which year is a boggling question. If published in 1970, then that photo's copyright is extended to 2020. Regardless, the verifiable piece of law comes with the Succession agreement. In that event, only documents of Yugoslavian laws and official rulings are in public domain. Rest of the works have to abide with the successor state laws. Since we are given no authors, let us treat it as anonymous and since no verifiable date of first legal publishing is given, then the pictures have not been published. Circulation of the photos on the web by the copyright holders in this case can be treated as first publishing (but the uploaders fail to even state the official site), which in this case can make the year from 1990 to now, certainly qualifying the anonymous photos as still in copyright. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The photo is from France taken by New York photographer(s) "Kadel & Herbert". Is PD-1923 valid? I would really like to know more about "Kadel & Herbert" because the Internet is fully of interesting photos with this signature. Specifically, it would be interesting to know when he/they died. I'm suspecting he/they were working for New York times, but I could not verify this. Nillerdk (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- They seem to be a New York photo agency, so first publication in the U.S. is definitely plausible. Doubt they were working for the Times; they probably just distributed photographs to them (and presumably others). One of the partners was George Kabel, who apparently started out working in the Bain News Service (the Library of Congress has a 1909 photo taken by him but copyright Bain). He may have written a 1939 book on airbrushing photographs (someone of the same name did, anyways). I can't find much more info at the moment though. It would seem in general to be a U.S. corporate copyright though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the issue is whether the photo was published before it popped up in the NYT online store. It is not inconceivable that this might not have been so—another better angle shot was obtained, another "bigger" story was running on that day, etc. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Given NYT is selling this photo, they at least THINK they own it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- If it is PD, like it almost certinaly is (in the U.S. at least), they have every right to sell it. The NYT should not have a copy in the first place if it was never published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, why would they not have a copy if it was never published? If the photographer is their staff (and not freelance), it could be the property of the company, right (like the archives of unpublished National Geographic photos)? Jappalang (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems pretty apparent that they were not NYT staff. Kadel and Herbert were two different people; they obviously had their own company (their photos show up in lots of different publications of the era). They would have had to sold/distributed the photo to the NYT, which would be publication. If it was NYT staff then yes publication is a question, but they would name an individual photographer (or none). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh... silly me; I deserve a trout, methinks... Jappalang (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems pretty apparent that they were not NYT staff. Kadel and Herbert were two different people; they obviously had their own company (their photos show up in lots of different publications of the era). They would have had to sold/distributed the photo to the NYT, which would be publication. If it was NYT staff then yes publication is a question, but they would name an individual photographer (or none). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, why would they not have a copy if it was never published? If the photographer is their staff (and not freelance), it could be the property of the company, right (like the archives of unpublished National Geographic photos)? Jappalang (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- If it is PD, like it almost certinaly is (in the U.S. at least), they have every right to sell it. The NYT should not have a copy in the first place if it was never published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Given NYT is selling this photo, they at least THINK they own it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the issue is whether the photo was published before it popped up in the NYT online store. It is not inconceivable that this might not have been so—another better angle shot was obtained, another "bigger" story was running on that day, etc. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
But the photo was taken in France. Does French legislation have nothing to say? Nillerdk (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Berne Convention defines country of origin as country of first publication. If the photo agency sent the photos back to the U.S., then that would be the country of origin for Commons purposes. The only thing we know is that it was published in a U.S. publication, presumably at the time, which makes first publication in the U.S. quite plausible. It would seem that it would at least be simultaneously published in the U.S., which (for a U.S. company) should be enough to assume PD status for us. If it was simultaneously published in France, they may use their term rather than the shorter term, although without an actual photographer named (instead just the company) it may be expired there too as Anonymous-EU. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. That was a great answer to my question (I wasen't aware of the definition in the Berne convention). I think you can mark it as reviewed now. Nillerdk (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Another note is that Kadel & Herbert were American-based photographers.[25] Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- This needs resolved still. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Closing in summary, the photos were taken in France by an independent studio—Kadel & Herbert—that is based in US. The studio sold a copy of their work to NYT. Whether NYT published it in their paper becomes irrelevant. By selling the photo to the paper publishers, Kadel & Herbert has effectively published their work, so PD passed. Jappalang (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- This needs resolved still. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Another note is that Kadel & Herbert were American-based photographers.[25] Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. That was a great answer to my question (I wasen't aware of the definition in the Berne convention). I think you can mark it as reviewed now. Nillerdk (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Here we have a diagram taken from a government document, so it should be a fairly simple open and shut case, right? Except the US government copied the sketch from a Japanese work. Undoubtably it is public domain (I think). The issue is should it be {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, or {{PD-Japan-organization}}? Anyone? Jappalang (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Listed both PD tags and tagged as passed PD review. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, what makes you think they copied a Japanese sketch? I would read that as if they made the sketch from Japanese descriptions of where bombs etc. hit the ship (otherwise there would be no need for translation)... Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- My interpretation of "Taken from translated Japanese Naval Documents" would be that the diagram was taken from the original Japanese documents as is and placed on the translated copy. If they based it on descriptions, I would have thought they would write "Based on translated Japanese Naval Documents"... Jappalang (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah OK. I think I originally read that as "made from" not "taken from". Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- My interpretation of "Taken from translated Japanese Naval Documents" would be that the diagram was taken from the original Japanese documents as is and placed on the translated copy. If they based it on descriptions, I would have thought they would write "Based on translated Japanese Naval Documents"... Jappalang (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
5 images up for review
There are currently 5 images in the review category. THey're not really my area. Can someone take a look at them? My speciality is US military images but I'm trying to branch out. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I tagged two as PD since they were published prior to 1880 or so but the other 3 I was less certain of, esp the one of the text as it appears the uploaded thinks his uploading it made it PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have translated the Danish text into English and suggested another license template, but I'm also unsure about its validity. I don't know what to do since we don't know if it was published before 1939 and in what country. We only know that it was (re)published in Germany in 1939 (if this should indeed be the first publication, I guess the photo is PD from January 1, 2010?). Nillerdk (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, PD-Art is not appropriate. {{PD-Scan}} maybe. Does the book give any author info? It is used on the cover of this book; wonder if there is any info there. Hard to believe that was the first publishing though. More probably a Russian photo, or maybe French. Could well be Anonymous-EU or a Russian equivalent, but without more info there is no way to know. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- The photo was published in L'Illustration 4 days after the event.[26] It definitely qualifies as public domain in United States; however, there is the question of its copyright status in France. Does L'Illustration print the photographer's name? Jappalang (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. Doesn't appear there is a credit, though can't quite read at that size. A French government website uses the photo here with just a credit to the magazine. There is also a L'Illustration issue from a couple weeks later at Gutenberg where the credits -- for photos that have them -- are in italics; I don't think I see a credit in that style from that source image. Sure looks like {{Anonymous-EU}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with that—noted and updated the image details. PD passed. Jappalang (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the German text, it is an obituary from the newspaper Schwyzer Zeitung ("Swiss Newspaper"), written by Franz Auf der Maur and published in 1949. The text is obviously not PD (will become PD 70 years after death of the author). Nillerdk (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- In Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alois Lüönd.jpg, it appears that user was uploading images inherited from grandparents etc. I wonder if that is another example, although that is a different name (the uploader's last name was Lüönd). If so, then the license is plausible (PD-Old is not being claimed). Still, that has COM:SCOPE issues as well; pure text uploads usually don't belong here unless it is photo of a particular historical document or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I found this image while checking files in de-wiki for dupes on Commons. On de:Datei:Nachruf Franz Betschart.jpg the license is "PD-ineligible" (Diese Datei erreicht nicht die für einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz nötige Schöpfungshöhe.). That's why I requested a review. --MGA73 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see how that would apply, but maybe it does in German law. It looks like that was not the original license (the uploader used a deleted template of "Bild-PD", though since it was done by a bot, maybe that was just a renaming). If it is actually PD, then it probably belongs on wikisource anyways, but that seems highly doubtful for U.S. law anyways. I would probably nominate for deletion on Commons on both PD and scope grounds, leaving the local copy (if that is valid for de-wiki). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you nominate it for del then? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see how that would apply, but maybe it does in German law. It looks like that was not the original license (the uploader used a deleted template of "Bild-PD", though since it was done by a bot, maybe that was just a renaming). If it is actually PD, then it probably belongs on wikisource anyways, but that seems highly doubtful for U.S. law anyways. I would probably nominate for deletion on Commons on both PD and scope grounds, leaving the local copy (if that is valid for de-wiki). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nachruf Franz Betschart.JPG, not sure if this is sort of a failed PD files review... Jappalang (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on translations, it is claimed the source is the Kriegsarchiv Wien (Vienna War Archive) and the author is unbekannt (unknown). If this site is trusted, this image was published on p. 273 of Jane's Fighting Ships (1903), which would qualify it as {{PD-1923}}; at least it can be hosted on Wikipedia. The problem for Commons is who took this photograph (to determine Europe copyrights). Does Jane's identify the author? If it does not, then perhaps we can use {{Anonymous-EU}}, but we need some confirmation. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Benedict Calvert.jpg hangs at the Enoch Pratt Free Library.[27] It is a European painting (likely British) collected for/donated to the Library. Although put together as a series of "Six Lords Baltimore", the paintings (others are 17th–18th century) are collected from different sources/authors.[28][29] It is likely a 17th-18th century painting, but there is no source to verify this (or for near-conclusive inference).
The Library states (post-edit: note the underlined sentence), "The digital images contained in the Portraits of the Six Lords Baltimore Collection are copyright 1998 by the Enoch Pratt Free Library. The Library does not own the copyrights to the prints themselves; to the best of our knowledge all the images published on this website are no longer copyrighted. Anyone intending to use these images must be aware that they may be subject to copyright, fees, and other legal restrictions imposed by parties outside of the Library. Usage of this exhibit implies consent with these digital guidelines. The users of this exhibit are solely responsible for any storage, republication, adaptation, or transmission of these images in any form outside of this exhibit. The Enoch Pratt Free Library is not responsible for the outside use of these images." How do we fit a license to this painting if it can be stored on Commons? Jappalang (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Copyfraud again... Regarding the picture, I am afraid it is anonymous, see also [30]. Sv1xv (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Uploaded that one as it's clearly superior. Rocket000 (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have no interest in the copyfraud; it is the Library's assertion that "to the best of our knowledge all the images published on this website are no longer copyrighted" (I should highlight that) we should be interested in. Can we take that as a statement of the anonymous undated painting as in public domain? If so, what sort of template/license are we going to use for that? Jappalang (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Presuming it was a contemporary portrait and thus PD-Old seems reasonable. There is no picture to verify, but it would seem to be the same painting sold at public auction in 1903 (Google Books link), so that would seem to be the last possible date of publication -- although the painting probably predated any copyright law which would have protected it... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the portrait held by the Calverts and later auctioned off is this one: a half-body portrayal of Leonard Calvert, who wears a long curly white wig per 17th century fashion. Jappalang (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that would be right. Nice searching. I should have read your original links better :-) Still, all logic and evidence for the uploaded painting points to PD-Old, so that should be the tag we use (inside PD-Art). Unless you want to use PD-UK-unknown; that would seem to be accurate too -- an apparently English painting, which I'm sure the provenance was investigated as much as possible, and the author is still unknown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going with PD-Old and approving PDreview here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I presume the reason we are going for PD is because the five other Lords Baltimore paintings are of the 17th–18th century and it is extremely unlikely this is a later 19th-century or early 20th century work (not likely either that the collector would pick up such a painting to complete the series)? Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your own links state that the original owner of all six was a descendent of the Calverts (Sir Thomas Calvert Eden), who had inherited them from an ancestor. No reason to think they came from different sources. This page (a Pratt Library page) goes a bit further; all six were owned by Caroline Calvert Eden (wife of w:Sir Robert Eden, 1st Baronet, of Maryland, died 1784) so they all presumably existed in that time frame. A couple of them were dispersed in sales and later re-collected, but they all came from the same original owner. I can't see any reason to question PD-Old. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- By "different sources", I mean "different authors"; each painting was done by a different painter. Jappalang (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, OK :-) But said unknown painter lived during the 1700s by all indications, so PD-Old is fairly obvious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- By "different sources", I mean "different authors"; each painting was done by a different painter. Jappalang (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your own links state that the original owner of all six was a descendent of the Calverts (Sir Thomas Calvert Eden), who had inherited them from an ancestor. No reason to think they came from different sources. This page (a Pratt Library page) goes a bit further; all six were owned by Caroline Calvert Eden (wife of w:Sir Robert Eden, 1st Baronet, of Maryland, died 1784) so they all presumably existed in that time frame. A couple of them were dispersed in sales and later re-collected, but they all came from the same original owner. I can't see any reason to question PD-Old. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I presume the reason we are going for PD is because the five other Lords Baltimore paintings are of the 17th–18th century and it is extremely unlikely this is a later 19th-century or early 20th century work (not likely either that the collector would pick up such a painting to complete the series)? Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going with PD-Old and approving PDreview here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that would be right. Nice searching. I should have read your original links better :-) Still, all logic and evidence for the uploaded painting points to PD-Old, so that should be the tag we use (inside PD-Art). Unless you want to use PD-UK-unknown; that would seem to be accurate too -- an apparently English painting, which I'm sure the provenance was investigated as much as possible, and the author is still unknown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the portrait held by the Calverts and later auctioned off is this one: a half-body portrayal of Leonard Calvert, who wears a long curly white wig per 17th century fashion. Jappalang (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Presuming it was a contemporary portrait and thus PD-Old seems reasonable. There is no picture to verify, but it would seem to be the same painting sold at public auction in 1903 (Google Books link), so that would seem to be the last possible date of publication -- although the painting probably predated any copyright law which would have protected it... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you also review templates?
We have a lot of templats/licenses stating that somthing is PD because ... Could you also review them? Like {{PD-PDFnet}}, {{PD-STFP}}, {{Demis-pd}} and {{PD-Denmark50}} (there must be a good way to find all PD-templates). That way we could see that the template is ok. --MGA73 (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does a PD-review of a template imply that all images from that source are free? Sv1xv (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- No but it could verify, that the template was valid - at least at the time where it was verified. Copyright notices could be changed on webpages (thats one of the reasons for doing a flickr review). And sometimes copyright notices are unclear (is "Feel free to use my images" enough for PD?) so someone might start uploading images thinking that whatever the template says is correct. If it is an english web page I could check myself but if it is chineese or russian I can't check. But to be honest I personally have not checked NASA-template but I trust that someone has ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
34 Yosemite pics
There are 34 Yosemite pics in the review cat now. It lists the date as 1900-1925 so I'm not sure we can pass these. Thoughts? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Off-hand, I am in favour of passing the obvious ones. Stereographs are generally made to be sold (for the stereograph craze in those days). I see some of the stereographs have the Copyright notice and the year as pre-1923. Hence, these should be definitely {{PD-US}}. Others are lacking notices, but if the c. 1900–25 date is to be believed, then {{PD-US-no-notice}} would do.
I am a bit concerned that {{PD-Scan}} does not allow the PD reason to be included like {{PD-Art}} does. Perhaps an admin can change {{PD-Scan}}?Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Post-edit: note that {{PD-Scan}} now allows for {{PD-Scan|PD-US}}, {{PD-Scan|PD-US-no-notice}}, etc. Jappalang (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)- This has now increased to 192 after I have pass-reviewed 10... Jappalang (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did several too, but I have a problem with the ones that could go past 1923. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note that you can go to the NYDL site (as linked in the Source field) and check the back of the stereograph for copyright notices (if any). Jappalang (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did several too, but I have a problem with the ones that could go past 1923. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- This has now increased to 192 after I have pass-reviewed 10... Jappalang (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Bio.congress.gov
Okay, now I see that Biographical Directory of the United States Congress gives many supposedly Congressional images (which many expect to be PD). However the the copyright states "Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder." and a specific template {{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}} was deprecated for that reason. My question is that many people have either been obliviously or intentionally tagging images from that site with a {{PD-USGov-Congress}} license instead. If an image's only source is this website should be be PD failing these, e.g. File:Dianne Feinstein, official Senate photo.jpg (source)? Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 18:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- The Bio Guide typically gives their sources when they obtain portraits from outside sources. See some of the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg. The issue from the bioguide site usually comes up with photos of older politicians... for modern ones, I would think they would almost always be official portraits. Can't see any reason to assume otherwise. And with a little poking... the image is the exact same one that used to be on Feinstein's senate webpage. The slightly higher resolution version is actually still on feinstein.senate.gov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This photo has been transferred to Commons from de-wiki. There was an inconclusive deletion request. Could someone fluent in German notify de:User:ADL on de-wiki, perhaps he can give us some details about the source and copyright status of this photo and why a 1937 photo is tagged as {{GFDL}}. Sv1xv (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Unless ADL is the photographer or the photographer's descendant, he or she would not have the right to administer the copyright of the image in question. German copyrights are fundamentally heredity in nature. Quoting Film Copyright in the European Union, "The solution is different in Germany, where article 29 of the copyright Act states that copyright may be transferred mortis causa but shall not be otherwise transferable."[31] (Also defined in German Tax and Business Law.[32]) The author can grant another person the "exclusive right" to use the image however he or she wishes, but it is not a transfer of copyright and it is only transferable on the permission of the author/copyright holder.[33] This issue seems to require an OTRS from ADL to affirm his or her identity in relation to the photographer. Jappalang (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- The main problem is that de:User:ADL does not use Commons (there is no User:ADL) and he is not aware of this discussion. Sv1xv (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Someone has to contact him or her then; as it is, we have no evidence that ADL is the photographer or a descendant, thus no right to license the image to others. Jappalang (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note that on the surface, the circumstances described in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ar95.D-OHEO.JPG does not point to ADL as a descendant but as someone who just came into possession of the negatives. Jappalang (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- We may have a problem contacting de:User:ADL; he has not edited de-wiki since September 2007. See de:Spezial:Beiträge/ADL. Sv1xv (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, my stance is for deletion. ADL has not given any indication he is the copyright holder or the descendant. I would not like to burden anyone to face a possible court case if they use the image under the thought that ADL has given them license to do so (which ADL has not the right). Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Any other opinions, or do we start {{Copyvio}}, {{Npd}}, or nominate for {{Delete}} again? Jappalang (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, my stance is for deletion. ADL has not given any indication he is the copyright holder or the descendant. I would not like to burden anyone to face a possible court case if they use the image under the thought that ADL has given them license to do so (which ADL has not the right). Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- We may have a problem contacting de:User:ADL; he has not edited de-wiki since September 2007. See de:Spezial:Beiträge/ADL. Sv1xv (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- The main problem is that de:User:ADL does not use Commons (there is no User:ADL) and he is not aware of this discussion. Sv1xv (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- ADL stands for "Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrthistoriker", a community of German aviation historians with great reputation, who write many publications. One of it's members started to work with the Wikipedia, which was thought to be great for the Wikipedia content for many users, but conflicts with other users, especially regarding the original research rules of the Wikipedia led to deep disappointment so he did not contribute any more. The Pictures are from the ADL Archive, and it is unlikely that there will be any copyright claims. But they will probably not comply with the Wikipedia rules. It is sad that Specialist who are willing to work for the Wikipedia are not respected and soon leave the project. He will not care if you are deleting the picture. He now is working for other websites and writes more books which you will have to buy. But this is a different story. 12:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (User Erzwo on the German Wikipedia)
- Erzwo, thanks for the information. Then the photo is an orphan. By that I call a work (usually a photograph) which is unpublished, by an unknown artist, not old enough to ensure 70 years pma, and which the current owner does not have the legal right to publish. Sv1xv (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Unless it could be considered {{Anonymous-EU}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Carl, unofrtunately {{Anonymous-EU}} works for 70 years after publication, not after creation. This is one of the causes that create orphans. Sv1xv (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The German law states In the case of anonymous and pseudonymous works, copyright shall expire 70 years after publication. However, it shall expire as soon as 70 years after creation of the work if the work was not published within that time limit. So, that period may well have expired too. If ADL published it before the 70 years was up, either it was unauthorized (and the 70-years-since-creation would still apply) or it was authorized (and the GFDL may actually apply). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Carl, unofrtunately {{Anonymous-EU}} works for 70 years after publication, not after creation. This is one of the causes that create orphans. Sv1xv (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Unless it could be considered {{Anonymous-EU}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Erzwo, thanks for the information. Then the photo is an orphan. By that I call a work (usually a photograph) which is unpublished, by an unknown artist, not old enough to ensure 70 years pma, and which the current owner does not have the legal right to publish. Sv1xv (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the photo is dated 1937, which makes sense, as they were built in 1936-37. ADL published the photo in 2007. Sv1xv (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- A tough call. seems to me since it was not known to be published within the 70 years from creation, the rule about 70 years from creation applies and we tag it PDR. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Tagging as PD, discussion seems to have died out. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- A tough call. seems to me since it was not known to be published within the 70 years from creation, the rule about 70 years from creation applies and we tag it PDR. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with this. How can we assume that the photo is PD when we don't know where it originally came from, who the author was and whether it was published before or not? It could be an anonymous work, but without more information from the uploader, we have no way of deciding this on our own. From ADL's comments during the discussions surrounding his uploads, it seems that he/they thought that it would be sufficient for us to know that these images are from ADL's archives and that they release them under a free license. As far as I can see, further inquiries about the exact sources, copyright holders and other details weren't answered satisfactorily and then ADL left the project because most of his uploads were deleted due to the lack of information. IMHO we don't have enough information to evaluate the copyright status of this image. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Kam Solusar. We are making some big leaps in assumption here. ADL was not forthright in giving us pertinent information of the photo. We are not even certain if this photo was taken in 1937 (they were built in 1936–37, but this does not mean the photo cannot be taken in 1944 or even a few years after the war) or if it was unpublished from 1937 until 2007; it might have been published in a magazine or book in that period. Since the archive exists, then communication and investigation of details are possible. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to change it go ahead. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Kam Solusar. We are making some big leaps in assumption here. ADL was not forthright in giving us pertinent information of the photo. We are not even certain if this photo was taken in 1937 (they were built in 1936–37, but this does not mean the photo cannot be taken in 1944 or even a few years after the war) or if it was unpublished from 1937 until 2007; it might have been published in a magazine or book in that period. Since the archive exists, then communication and investigation of details are possible. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with this. How can we assume that the photo is PD when we don't know where it originally came from, who the author was and whether it was published before or not? It could be an anonymous work, but without more information from the uploader, we have no way of deciding this on our own. From ADL's comments during the discussions surrounding his uploads, it seems that he/they thought that it would be sufficient for us to know that these images are from ADL's archives and that they release them under a free license. As far as I can see, further inquiries about the exact sources, copyright holders and other details weren't answered satisfactorily and then ADL left the project because most of his uploads were deleted due to the lack of information. IMHO we don't have enough information to evaluate the copyright status of this image. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Issue over PD-Art for paintings in UK
Dcoetzee has been delivered a legal notice by the NPG for uploading their high-resolution photos of paintings. They are preparing a lawsuit against him under UK law. This thread is to gather attention to the main thread at Village pump. Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are these the same as those stereoscopic images or a different set? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's about a few thousands of old portraits downloaded from the National Portrait Gallery in London. Sv1xv (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are these the same as those stereoscopic images or a different set? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this PD? Would tagging images from that category be in scope here? --MGA73 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- They come from the Flickr Commons, where the contributing institution has declared them to be free of copyright for one reason or another. They should virtually all be fine. The only issue is that I would guess they would only use the law in the institution's country, so there may be a few cases where something is not PD in the country of origin and/or the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Image review - File:Żołnierze bawarscy pocz. XVIII w..jpg
A contributor to Wikimedia Commons has noted that this image is in need of attention, but would prefer a more experienced contributor aids or undertakes this.
Issue: Claimed as self but looks like an old book illustration.
Will request more detail from the original uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- You could tag them for review as they have not been reviewed yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- How do I do that? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- PD-self is obviously wrong. But, it is probably PD-Old. It appears to come from a Vinkhuizen Collection, which was 32,000+ pieces depicting military costumes, which was donated to the New York Public Library in 1911 (after Vinkhuizen's death).[34] Have not managed to track down the original work. Obviously PD in the U.S. but also obviously a non-U.S. work. Still... it would have been published, collected (along with 30,000 others, which must have taken a while) and later donated in 1911. I have not found the actual source though, which would be nice. It probably came from the New York Public Library. It looks like the original uploader stopped contributing over two years ago. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the license is totally wrong. Problem is that Vinkhuizen Collection is a compilation from various sources.[35] This particular image is likely gotten from the NYPL Digital Gallery—http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?1503571 (same size). While undoutably {{PD-1923}}, its status in its source of country could be a concern if the artists are listed. Jappalang (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it obviously came from the NYPL, but I couldn't find it originally -- thanks for that link. This one's source is here. No author listed but you would think there would be one in the original work. Though, also according to the first link you gave (in its comments), many of the images are Vinkhuizen's own versions of uniforms, either derivatives of some other work or even possibly original. Those would be PD-Old, but it does seem as though documentation on his sources is largely missing. Makes it fairly frustrating. The illustration does not appear to be signed either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- So PD-Old or PD-1923? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- They are not U.S. works (rather Dutch I think). They are PD-1923 for the U.S., but that doesn't apply in the Netherlands. If these were made by Vinkhuijzen himself (parts of his collection were), they are PD-Old. If it was cut out of a 19th century publication, it's fuzzier, as a source publication doesn't seem to be documented. In all likelihood PD-Old though. I'd just go with that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- They are not U.S. works (rather Dutch I think). They are PD-1923 for the U.S., but that doesn't apply in the Netherlands. If these were made by Vinkhuijzen himself (parts of his collection were), they are PD-Old. If it was cut out of a 19th century publication, it's fuzzier, as a source publication doesn't seem to be documented. In all likelihood PD-Old though. I'd just go with that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- So PD-Old or PD-1923? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it obviously came from the NYPL, but I couldn't find it originally -- thanks for that link. This one's source is here. No author listed but you would think there would be one in the original work. Though, also according to the first link you gave (in its comments), many of the images are Vinkhuizen's own versions of uniforms, either derivatives of some other work or even possibly original. Those would be PD-Old, but it does seem as though documentation on his sources is largely missing. Makes it fairly frustrating. The illustration does not appear to be signed either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the license is totally wrong. Problem is that Vinkhuizen Collection is a compilation from various sources.[35] This particular image is likely gotten from the NYPL Digital Gallery—http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?1503571 (same size). While undoutably {{PD-1923}}, its status in its source of country could be a concern if the artists are listed. Jappalang (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I had filed a deletion request for this map, but the uploader (User:Exec) insists it is public domain. So I submit it here for review and if it fails it must go for a speedy deletion. Sv1xv (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh. Yugoslav copyrights are a bit of a mess to begin with -- they were a Berne signatory, and works may be "simultaneously published" in all successor countries, though if this map company was located in one particular successor country, that may be the one to use. This link seems to indicate that a Vladimir Marinkovic published a Yugoslav map in 1931; maybe that is the same person/company. I'm not sure if this would be considered a personal or corporate copyright, or if Yugoslavia had different terms for them, or what. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Publisher was located in Beograd (see down left corner), today in Serbia. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure the "source" information is sufficient, perhaps adding the publishing date of the nomination form would be better. I guess it is the 2/28/80 issue listed on http://www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/Jackson.htm at the "Bellerive Hotel" entry.
My computer has some troubles reading this sort of pdf file. I can read parts of it only (fortunately p. 13 displays correctly, but not other pages).
My main question is : do we have reasons to believe this photographer is a federal employee ?
Could he not be a private photographer who simply happened to provide pictures for that administration ?
Could he not be a State employee, rather than a federal employee ?
Teofilo (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- This appears to be an image from the application to the NPS to add the hotel to the National Historic Register. The PDFs say the negatives are still on file in Kansas City (as of 1979), and the photographer (Joan L. Michalak) co-authored a book ("Postcards from old Kansas City"), and the form itself says she is a member of the Historic Kansas City Foundation. They are not PD-USGov. The only question is if photos submitted on that application were assumed to be donated to the public domain... doesn't sound like it; these instructions (warning: 21MB PDF file) say By allowing a photograph to be submitted to the National Park Service with a National Register form, photographers grant permission to the National Park Service to use the photograph for publication and other purposes, including duplication, display, distribution, study, publicity, and audio-visual presentations. So, only the NPS has permission. There is no copyright notice that I could see, though this likely wouldn't count as a general publication. They are nominated for deletion, so I added this info there too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, this clarifies things a lot. Teofilo (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The uploader wrote in the "author" field : "unknown HABS photographer", but what the caption page is saying is slightly different : "photographer unknown".
If we don't know, if the person who created this catalog entry doesn't know who the photographer is, it is difficult to know if he is a federal employee or isn't.
The Library of Congress says :
- The Library of Congress is providing access to these materials solely for educational and research purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or other rights holders (such as publicity and/or privacy rights) is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions.
Source : memory.loc.gov
So, should not this picture be uploaded to the English Wikipedia only, with a "fair use" rationale ? Teofilo (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- HABS took most of their photos. The caption page does not mention an external source for this image, while they do for several others. They also have no problem vending the high-resolution versions, which they often prevent if there is a possible issue. Dunno, I would say the current listing is the most likely situation, and moving back to en-wiki is much too cautious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I changed the Author= field into "photographer unknown" with quotes. I am still a bit sceptical about template {{PD-USGov-Interior-HABS}}'s change of the cautious "solely for educational and research purposes" into "it's free beer". I'd rather we used the "it's free beer" approach only in obvious cases like the pictures in category:Jack Boucher. I am not sure that oversimplifying copyright issues serves best the interest of the users. Teofilo (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- They also have no problem vending the high-resolution versions, which they often prevent if there is a possible issue. -> I don't think we can rely on this : they provide high resolution versions even when they credit an external source : Commons:Deletion requests/File:116271pv.jpg (large size tiff available here). Teofilo (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- The rights page states: The original measured drawings and most of the photographs and data pages in HABS/HAER/HALS were created for the U.S. Government and are considered to be in the public domain. However, occasionally material from a historical society or other source is included in the photographs or data pages. These materials are noted by the presence of a line crediting the original source, and it may be necessary to receive permission from the owner of such material before it can be published. The general assumption is then for public domain. The one you mention above is from an external source (unknown photographer of the construction company), but may well have donated to the public domain by that company. It is most likely PD (odds of renewal are low), though there does not seem to be explicit documentation to that effect. And as you note, the government has provided high-resolution copies for a while now without complaint. There are a number of HABS records where access to even the thumbnails is blocked, so it appears these decisions are not indiscriminate. This page indicates that the John W. Cowper company requests attribution. I commented on the DR. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is quite strange that the loc has two "rights pages" for that collection : that one I mentioned with a "memory.loc" URL, and that one you are quoting. Odds of renewal are low, but most of these pics are probably protected as unpublished works. "The government has provided high-resolution copies for a while now without complaint" : I have thought about this too, but on the other hand, the photographer's names are almost never mentioned in the html pages, so that a photographer googling his name has no probability of finding the pics. It is even more true when photographs are marked only with "photographer unknown". Teofilo (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- HABS started in the 1930s; it is not impossible that they lost track of their own photographers on some of the records. Some of their documentation states that some of the 1930s original negatives have been lost. In any event, anyone donating photographs to the effort should have been quite aware of the implications -- the government would publish them and make them available, even if previously unpublished. Still, it is good to look at the documentation pages for more accurate credits and tags. Usually it is pretty obvious which photos were taken by HABS and which were from external sources, but a couple of the ones you have mentioned here were not as obvious. The HABS photo submission guidelines state pretty explicitly:
- Photographs taken for and included in the collections of HABS/HAER are in the public domain and are copyright free, except in the very rare instances where restrictions are imposed upon their use and distribution.
- No photograph, negative, print or caption will be accepted for the HABS/HAER collection that bears a copyright statement or symbol. There will be no presumption of copyright. No one has the authority to waive this policy.
- Every user is asked to credit the photographer and either HABS or HAER. Users of HABS and HAER records from the collection in the Library of Congress pay only the cost of reproduction. No user fees are charged.
- I seriously doubt that many photos from this collection should be nominated at all. Perhaps have their tags fixed if they are not made by HABS photographers, but that is probably enough, unless there are explicit restrictions mentioned in the documentation (and I have seen HABS thumbnails blocked, so it does happen). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- HABS started in the 1930s; it is not impossible that they lost track of their own photographers on some of the records. Some of their documentation states that some of the 1930s original negatives have been lost. In any event, anyone donating photographs to the effort should have been quite aware of the implications -- the government would publish them and make them available, even if previously unpublished. Still, it is good to look at the documentation pages for more accurate credits and tags. Usually it is pretty obvious which photos were taken by HABS and which were from external sources, but a couple of the ones you have mentioned here were not as obvious. The HABS photo submission guidelines state pretty explicitly:
- I think it is quite strange that the loc has two "rights pages" for that collection : that one I mentioned with a "memory.loc" URL, and that one you are quoting. Odds of renewal are low, but most of these pics are probably protected as unpublished works. "The government has provided high-resolution copies for a while now without complaint" : I have thought about this too, but on the other hand, the photographer's names are almost never mentioned in the html pages, so that a photographer googling his name has no probability of finding the pics. It is even more true when photographs are marked only with "photographer unknown". Teofilo (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
After Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nestorius.jpg, Sv1xv kept this file, and changed the license to PD-Old, but no date is given for the photograph. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Given the evidence available, I believe a deletion was premature and the issue should be discussed here, so I tagged it with Category:PD files for review. Obviously the {{PD-Art}} license tag was wrong. If a PD license applies, this should be some flavor of {{PD-old}}. I shall also close other borderline deletion requests which involve public domain images with the same method (see File:Jugoslavija1929 banovine.jpg). Sv1xv (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- When you go to http://www.heiligenlexikon.de/Gemeinfreiheit.html and then hover on the picture caption with the mouse, http://www.catholica.nl/archief/oktober/Perzie.html shows up in a popup. If you type down that adress in your browser's address bar, you can see that http://www.catholica.nl/archief/oktober/Perzie.html is a real web page, dated october 2002 so I believe that this is the source where the people at heiligenlexicon got if from. http://www.catholica.nl/disclaimer.html sort of implies that they "borrow" a lot of material from various sources. In case they are the copyright owner, they don't say that their texts or pictures are free. Teofilo (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that does appear to be the original source. If there is no indication of public domain status there... this one seems a bit dubious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- No new information or evidence for over a month. I believe this one failed the PD-review. Should I close it? Sv1xv (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Closing: I closed the discussion with Failed. I don't think Catholica.nl is the ultimate source, but no good evidence of PD status was discovered. Sv1xv (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I was about to edit the permission field into Permission = This picture belongs to Library of Congress CALL NUMBER: LOT 12482 (H) {P&P}, annotated with "No copyright renewal" and change the license tag into {{PD-US-not-renewed}}, when I read "because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 with a copyright notice". So we still need some kind of evidence that it was ever published. Teofilo (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, here is the link to the collection by Irving Underhill containting this photo and 128 others: [36]. It is described there as a publication, so I guess it has been published? Nillerdk (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- The description page states there were copyright statements on the materials -- registration started the clock ticking on U.S. copyright as much as publication. Presumably there was a starting year for copyright and therefore they had a time frame during which a renewal was required, and not found. PD-US-not_renewed would seem to be the correct tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some works happen to be registered but never published, don't they ? Teofilo (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but the 28-year term started at registration in that case -- they did not need to be published in that case. If not renewed 27-28 years later, they fell into the public domain even if they had never been published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some works happen to be registered but never published, don't they ? Teofilo (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This photo was uploaded without a source, the uploader just stated "USAF". I located a recent (2007) USAF publication [37] which contains a version of this photo, with no reference to third parties ("courtesy photo" etc). Any views on its copyright status? Sv1xv (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is probably okay the site's disclaimer says "AF.mil is provided as a public service by the Office of the Secretary of Air Force (Public Affairs). Information presented on AF.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.", in further searching I found it here and it is a U.S. Air Force photo. Looks okay for PD review, do you agree? Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 13:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they are different scans from the same or different prints from the same original negative. Sv1xv (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:YB49-2 300.jpg says it is a crop of this image, but gives the accurate original source and license statement. The edwards.af.mil page is now gone, but a copy can be seen at archive.org. archive.org does not have a copy of the actual full image anymore but does have a smaller one. Seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah... File:ΥΒ-49 bomber.jpg is a larger copy of the same image I think, with a still-active source. The image ID on that one identifies it as being taken by the Air Force, though the photographer is now unknown (it has the -F- in it, but the 9999J indicates they don't know who the photographer was). Definitely OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is a new one, I just uploaded it from the page indicated by User:Rambo's Revenge. Sv1xv (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, right, sorry. I had started looking before his reply ;-) But yes, the photo was taken by the Air Force so should be OK.
- All now tagged as PD reviewed. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, right, sorry. I had started looking before his reply ;-) But yes, the photo was taken by the Air Force so should be OK.
- This is a new one, I just uploaded it from the page indicated by User:Rambo's Revenge. Sv1xv (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah... File:ΥΒ-49 bomber.jpg is a larger copy of the same image I think, with a still-active source. The image ID on that one identifies it as being taken by the Air Force, though the photographer is now unknown (it has the -F- in it, but the 9999J indicates they don't know who the photographer was). Definitely OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Common sense indicates that this is a US Navy photo, taken from U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News ([38]), where it was published without reference to third parties. Any views? Sv1xv (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Seems obvious. It's PD-US-no_notice if it isn't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- (As an aside... it shouldn't have been marked "no source" in the first place, as it had a perfectly good source to begin with. It wasn't a direct link, but plenty enough information to find the issue.) Anyways, no way non-military personnel gets into *that* position to take a photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Tagged as reviewed. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- (As an aside... it shouldn't have been marked "no source" in the first place, as it had a perfectly good source to begin with. It wasn't a direct link, but plenty enough information to find the issue.) Anyways, no way non-military personnel gets into *that* position to take a photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
We have no evidence for the copyrighted free use, but is there any chance that this could be PD-old or PD-US-no-notice ? Teofilo (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- That looks like a thoroughly modern interpretation. The upload comment on the original en-wiki upload is (in part) Seal of the United States City of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Image created by uploader using Corel Draw. Because of the complexity of the drawing, the results of an SVG export (both through Corel Draw and SVG Factory) were unacceptable and thus the [cut off] So... this has not just been taken from a website, and is largely self-drawn. The question is whether it is still derivative of a copyrighted version. The design of the seal is usually specified in (non-copyrightable) law, so there may be a graphical version there which can be drawn from and be perfectly fine. I sorta doubt it was drawn directly from a written description, but if so, that would make it perfectly fine too. Copyright only attaches to specific versions of coats of arms or seals, not their general design. (And state/municipal law itself is public domain, too.) It is similar to versions found on the municipal websites in terms of its basic elements and positions, but that is the "idea" part... the "expression" -- all the little details -- are different. Short answer... not completely sure, but as it is largely self-drawn it is copyrightable by that artist, and so is licensable as that artist wishes. It is also probably not a derivative work, unless a (copyrighted) source exists which has the same, specific bits of expression -- which I think would have to be shown. But this version is not (quite) PD because the author did not license it that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Alfonso Capdeville's image
Hello, I would like to know if I could upload an image of Alfonso Capdeville, which is here; if so, which license I can use? I talked with Dferg (talk · contribs) and he told me that I could use either {{PD-old}} or {{PD-AR-Photo}}, but that I should ask here first. I don't have the exact date, but it's older than 1920, because Capdeville died on that year. Thanks, Agustín Any question? es-wiki 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- {{PD-Old}} doesn't necessarily apply because the author of the work (who holds any copyright) may not have been dead 70 years.
- e.g. The photographer may have been 30 at the time it was taken (1905 say, so when Capdeville was aged 51 which seems reasonalbe). If the photographer lived until 70 (also reasonable), it wouldn't qualify for PD-Old until 70 years after the authors death. i.e. 1945+70 =2015. So to prove this you'd need some info. about the author.
- For {{PD-AR-Photo}} you'd need to prove that Argentina was the country of origin (i.e. where it was taken, which could be tough, as I think Capdeville may have lived in France post-1910) and that it was first published at least 20 years ago (should be easier and can almost be assumed). Hope this helps, Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering. If this information is useful, Capdeville lived in the w:Mendoza Province since 1910, in the middle of the countryside. Well, Rambo's Revenge, can I upload it? Your explanation was very clear and useful, thanks, Agustín Any question? es-wiki 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I checked the link on the description page [39] and found the following message:
The item is not available due to issues with the item's content. If you would like to report this problem as an error report, you may do so here.
Is their any further information about this sound file? Sv1xv (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like the sounds of that one. The song itself is fine, but the recording may very well not be -- w:Douglas Jimerson is a contemporary performer, and it sounds like he has released a CD -- we probably want much better proof of the owner of the recording actually releasing it to the public domain. Especially if archive.org has removed it. Archived version of their original page here. I would say to nominate for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- This one is closed as well, the file has been deleted. Sv1xv (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
According to [40] this photo was created by the "Belize Larval-Fish Group" in 2005, so it is under regular copyright. Sv1xv (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- That group is apparently part of the Smithsonian Institution. Most Smithsonian employees (not all) are federal employees, so it may be PD-USGov. If it was made by other employees, then the Institution may own the copyright, but have apparently placed it in the public domain by virtue of placing on Flickr Commons. The Smithsonian doesn't really ever distinguish which of their own works were made by federal or non-federal employees; they typically just claim copyright on everything. But, anything they submit to Flickr Commons should be fine. The PD-author possibility is covered in the tag used. I don't see any issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I closed it with positive result. Sv1xv (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.