User:Massimop/discussioni1

Possible massive license problem

The 397 files using this template, and quite possibly all heraldry uploaded by User:Massimop, are made with this software. It is freeware, but when downloaded the license states:

Vous êtes autorisé à effectuer des copies ou des adaptations du logiciel pour des raisons de sauvegarde ou lorsque la copie et l'adaptation se révèlent être des étapes essentielles dans le cadre autorisé de l'utilisation du logiciel. Vous devez reproduire toutes les notices de copyright du logiciel d'origine pour chacune des copies ou adaptations réalisées. Vous n'êtes pas autorisé à copier le logiciel sur un réseau public.

The website mentions:

Article 10 - Propriété Intellectuelle 10.1 - Tous les textes, commentaires, ouvrages, illustrations œuvres et images reproduits ou représentés sur les sites de HERALOGIC (france-armorial.fr, euraldic.com) sont strictement réservés au titre du droit d'auteur ainsi qu'au titre de la propriété intellectuelle et pour le monde entier. À ce titre et conformément aux dispositions du code de la propriété intellectuelle, seule l'utilisation pour un usage privé sous réserve de dispositions différentes voire plus restrictives du code de la propriété intellectuelle est autorisée. Toute reproduction ou représentation totale ou partielle des sites de HERALOGIC ou de tout ou partie des éléments se trouvant sur les sites de HERALOGIC est strictement interdite.

10.2 - Certains produits tels que notamment les logiciels font l'objet de droits d'utilisation personnels et spécifiques réglementant les copies, diffusions publiques, locations. Vous devez respecter les conditions générales de vente de ces produits et HERALOGIC ne saurait être responsable des utilisations qui pourraient être faites des produits dans ce cadre.

This seems to mean that the generated coats of arms aren't under a free license. Am I interpreting this correctly? Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Fastily, but I have a comment. The first license appears to refer to the software, while the second refers to the images on the website. Neither refers directly to the output of the program. All the images on Adobe's website are copyrighted, and the software is definitely not open source. But that doesn't prevent people from creating freely licensed output with Photoshop or Illustrator. Does HERALOGIC really claim to retain copyright on the output of its program? Trlkly (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the first paragraph is about the software, not its output, and that the latter paragraphs are about the website. But I don‘t know how the software works: if it builds COAs from copyrighted ‘clip-art’ components that it serves from the site, such output would be derivative and subject to the license on those media. (I can use Inkscape to extract a corporate logo from a PDF brochure online, but that doesn’t mean I can call the SVG I save my own work, or mere output from the program!) OTOH if the elements provided by the program are just heraldic ordinaries and whatnot, they’d be considered too simple or generic to copyright, assuming other elements are created by the user or imported from free sources, as with any drawing program.

@Trlkly: have you installed the program, and can you determine if its image database or whatever is sourced to the website or explicitly covered by similar terms? Or can you point to an example of an uploaded file that appears to be derived from the website’s content?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I did use the installer, but I could not get the program to run, despite fiddling with it a bit. That said, it did appear to come with all its graphical assets (albeit in a proprietary hqm file format, so I don't believe it is getting them from the website. That is why I do not believe the website license applies to these files. Trlkly (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There is still no indication that these clip arts are in a free license, which is what worries me. They claim copyright on the images on their website, and I would assume that they use a similar or identical database for their software. True, a lot of elements would not pass the threshold of originality, the animal charges do. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I use software HERALOGIC from a lot of years (five or six realeases having different names: the last is LEDA Les Escuts Des Arms). The images used in any coat of arms are contained in collections included in the software and any realease contains an augmented numbers of images for which I pay buying that new release. The images are integrated in the use of software and are not extracted from the HERALOGIC website that, instead, uses the same software to produce its outputs. If I use Word, correctly acquired, I can use the fonts included, even if Microsoft includes in its website the same fonts. Which is the difference ? All coats of arms I uploaded are produced by me whith the software correctly acquired, so I have the right to publishing them whith the licence preferred. That's all. --Massimop (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Being allowed to use something does not mean that the license is sufficiently free for Commons. Standard fonts generally don't pass the Commons:Threshold of originality. Clip-art contained with Office, the closest comparison, is only free for personal non-commercial use. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a pity, I think you're right. The clip art in the software suite hasn't been published under a free, Commons-compatible] license, which makes these derivs of non-free content :/ -FASTILY 00:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Before you go through a massive file deletion, I think it would make sense to contact the company in question and see if they release the copyright of the derivative works to the user. If they do, the user could then turn around and publish it under a free license. Trlkly (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You deleted many coats of arms with motivation Derivative of non-free content. Could you clarify this motivation for the file Coa fam ITA valeri.jpg who is made only by a field red with an ordinary white? Which is the derivative or non-free element ? The same situation exists for many other deleted files. --Massimop (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, what in the world is going on? All we determined here was that the ones containing animal charges would be copyvios. A large portion of the clipart images are too simple to be under copyright. With the files now deleted, we can no longer determine which ones are PD-simple and which ones are copyvios. We need them undeleted so we can sort them. (In the past, sorting through files that may be copyvios would be done in a DR.) Trlkly (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

New elements to considering. In the same time you deleted files, I wrote to HERALOGIC to obtain their opinion on the job. This is the answer:

Bonjour,

Tous les meubles inclus dans le logiciel LEDA sont libres de droit.

Pour votre information, les 2/3 des meubles sont des créations réalisées à partir des dessins de l'Armorial Général de d'Hozier de 1696, de livres anciens tombés dans le domaine public (plus de 70 ans après la mort de leur auteur), et le reste correspond à des dessins créés à partir d'éléments géométriques. Toutes ces créations sont des originaux.

Toute personne doutant de la provenance d'un dessin contenu dans le logiciel LEDA doit pouvoir étayer son accusation et citer le nom de son propriétaire "véritable" en en amenant la preuve.

Je serai intéressé par les noms de ces "propriétaires".

Si des meubles apparaissent dans d'autres dessins d'armes, demandez à vos accusateurs les preuves qu'ils ne proviennent pas du même logiciel et que ce sont bien ces dessins "originaux". Vous devriez ainsi les occuper pour les dix prochaines années...

Bonne continuation.

Cordialement.

Marc LETELLIER

HERALOGIC

So, could you reload all the files, please ? Thank you. --Massimop (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What did you tell him exactly? His reply responds to people claiming that his work violates someone else's copyright. Did you tell him that we claim copyright on his files, or has he misinterpreted you? Also, shouldn't such mails be handled through OTRS? Lemmens, Tom (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Here my email to HERALOGIC:

Bonsoir,

mon nom est Massimo Palmieri, et je suis, de plusieurs années, un utilisateur de votre logiciel LEDA et de ses versions précedentes.

Je utilise le logiciel pour produire des blasons de familles italiennes que, en suite, je vais publier sur Commons, le site web de Wikipedia où sont deposés les files publiés avec licence libre et sont, pourtant, à disposition de toutes utilisateur de Wikipedia.

Depuis quelque jour des utilisateurs ont formulé le doute que je n'ai pas le droit de publier mes dessins leur donnant la licence libre, parce que il y a le doute que les images utilisées (en faisant reference au meubles, lion, aigle etc) ne soient pas libre, tandis que je soit legalement utilisateur du logiciel LEDA. Je voudrai connaitre votre opinion, surtout en consideration du fait que j'ai acheté le logiciel exclusivement pour réaliser les blason à publier sur Commons.

Merci de votre reponse.

Massimo Palmieri

In my opinion hys reply means that nobody has copyright on images of LEDA because images are out copyright for age, so HERALOGIC don't have nor claims copyright and these images are free for any user interested. If that isn't clear I am not able to explain it better. You told I violed copyright of HERALOGIC; HERALOGIC explains that they haven't that copyright because of age of images. The files were deleted only for the presence of template, not for examination of coats of arms. Were is the copyviol ? The who's copyright ? OTRS is not necessary because there is not copyright to protege. Is it so embarassing the aknowlegement of mistake ?--Massimop (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I said, what you wrote, and what Mr. Letellier said again. My sole intention is to erase any doubt, I don't see how that is anything to be embarrassed about. The mail you've sent is rather unclear, and you seem to have misrepresented my/our position gravely. Mr. Letellier interpreted it as me/we claiming that he himself violated copyright by stealing my/our images. The first sentence of the reply states that free from rights, and later he claims asserts these as original work. Did he release this original work in the public domain? He is defending himself from accusations that do not exist. The rest of the reply is based on his interpretation that he was accused of copyright violation. That's an issue, a worrying issue, that you have ignored. I urge you to explain to Mr. Letellier that nobody is accusing him of copyright violation. As far as I know, OTRS is still needed. A mail including a clear statement by Mr. Letellier should be verified and stored in the system for future reference. If I am wrong, I am sure Fastily will correct me. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify which is the copyright I violated ? Maybe the copyright pertaining HERALOGIC ? No, beacuse Mr. Letellier wrote les 2/3 des meubles sont des créations réalisées à partir des dessins de l'Armorial Général de d'Hozier de 1696, de livres anciens tombés dans le domaine public (plus de 70 ans après la mort de leur auteur), et le reste correspond à des dessins créés à partir d'éléments géométriques. Toutes ces créations sont des originaux; so Mr. Letellier can't release an OTRS for copyright that he doeasn't have. The copyright pertains d'Hozier ? No, because the armorial was published in 1696. The copyright pertains to another else ? Who is he ? I used a software which has libraries of images free from any copyright. There is always the problem that many files was deleted even if without images (a field sable, etc.). For these coats which was the cause of deletion ? Can we stop this unuseful discussion ? --Massimop (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said you violated any copyright (I merely raised the possibility), nor did I say that Mr. Letellier is violating any copyright. You claim that this discussion is unuseful, but you seem to ignore what I have written. OTRS-confirmation is needed because of a few reasons. Not only does the mail have to be verified, but it must also be accessible. If we leave it as it is now, your mail will disappear into the archives of this discussion page and other persons will raise the same same questions. Mr. Letellier can release copyright, as he does have it. He defended himself from perceived accusations, stating "Toutes ces créations sont des originaux". All Mr. Letellier knows is that some people have accused him of copyright violation. It is against those accusations that he defended himself, describing his sources as being in the public domain. You have given no indication of clarifying the situation to him. We'd need a clear statement clarifying that his derivative work based on those sources is in the public domain (or another compatible license).

I have never accused Mr. Letellier of violation my copyright. I have not deleted your files. I don't want your files deleted. I am only looking for assurance that work generated with the software can legally be uploaded on Wikipedia, as the website offered nothing. A clear mail sent to OTRS would settle this matter, and will make sure that it doesn't pop up again. I also once again urge you to reassure Mr. Letellier that nobody is accusing him of violation any copyright. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Tom. OTRS permission is required before these images can be restored -FASTILY 03:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In Armorial de France are linked all the volumes of the Armorial in wich are clearly exposed all the images included in the libraries of the software LEDA. You want I ask to Mr. Letellier to compile an OTRS to declare he hasn't any rights on the images of the Armorial of d'Hozier ? He yet declared that. How can anyone release an OTRS on rights he hasn't ? In the same way I can realease that OTRS: which is the difference ? For Fastily: you should, anyway, restore all the files not including images. Another solution is that I reload CoA with declaration that the images are extracted from Armorial d'Hozier. But it is not too smart made this job one by one if that could be performed by a boot as happened for the deletion. In addiction, when I use a my own image inserted in software (that happened frequently) have I realease an OTRS ? I thought was sufficient the declaration of licence (this is my owm job); isn't it so ? --Massimop (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Because I didn't have any answer for my question on which is the violated copyright, I will upload for the second time ten files you deleted. This time I will not insert any notification about software LEDA. But I have to claim that all files made by me and concerning coats of arms of italian families are output of software LEDA. So, if you will decide to delete the ten files reloaded you have to delete all my files concerning italian familes. Theese files are easily to identify because all their filename begins with Coa fam, Coa rel, Coa civ or Coaq (the last two group are concerning coats of cities and of historical regions), and doesn't have a triletteral group just before the file extension. So: (Coa_fam_ITA_caffarelli5.jpg) is my file made with LEDA, where (Coa fam ITA caffarini abb.jpg) and (Coa fam ITA calderini dlf.jpg) are files uploaded by me, but not made with LEDA. --Massimop (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)