Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/04

New Help With Proper Format for Image in Public Domain Proof

I have uploaded a few images that are in the public domain in Japan due to them being 100s of years old. What proof do I need to provide and where does that proof go when you edit an image you have uploaded?

One image is here. It is a page from the oldest Japanese massage manual in Japan written in 1801. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anma_Tebiki_002.jpg

This image has a deletion notice on it. I have asked several times now for help and have received very poor and bague replies at best so far.

Thanks for your help... I hope.

Yotsume (Billy)

Hi. I notice that at the time when the deletion notice was added by JuTa, you had not put any licence on the file description page. You've now added the {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} tag, but I don't think this is correct because the file is not a photograph. I think {{PD-Japan}} is the more appropriate tag, so I've put that on the page instead. If you can find a website with information about when the book was published and/or the dates when the author was born and died, add it to the page. After you have done this, I suggest that you put a message on JuTa's user talk page to ask if the current licence and information is OK, and if so, whether the deletion notice can be removed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What resolution passes on this one, opinions?

File:乌达木2.png

乌达木 .
Image updated, same size, but now it has a 50px under it, as de minimus and then scaled up from that image, still looks ok though. -pen

I've created this portrait for a Graphics lab request, and want opinions on the ways in which it can pass copyright if it's more detailed, and so on, the objective is to describe the subject without copying someone's photo or video, and I want to see what can be applied to other similar requests (hey, if they ever come!) :)

The subject's name is Uudam and there are plenty of images on google, which is the original of this I don't know, I probably based it on fan-art derivative work, which is a larger, detailed colour photograph of the subject. Penyulap ☏ 17:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how your request can be answered without knowing the source or set of sources you used. It is not clear to me whether this approach is even recognized on Commons. Do you know a precedent? Dankarl (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'd like to create, this is a sub board of the VP, and although it is something new and maybe needs to be on vp central, I figure there should be some people here who know more about cr rules. Now, the source would cloud the issue beyond saying it is a high res full colour photo, nothing doctored about it, just a standard image. So what I have made is actually far removed from it.

Now if I wasn't careful that way, the discussion would inevitably pick up nonsense comments like copying one pixel's colour from a photo and flood-filling an entire image with it becomes a derivative work. We don't need the conversation to go off in that direction, it would be a lot better to have a proper example of what can be done to fill in an enormous number of articles that exist and don't have free images.

Having someone sit and draw with pencil would be just fine, but then, who has the time, and more important is not that it was a pencil and paper but the question of why that approach passes in the first place. Then apply all the same reasons to the solution here, and you have a workable guideline. Penyulap ☏ 18:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I think about this issue goes like this:

I have never seen Barack Obama in person. Therefore, if I had the necessary skill and I were to draw a picture of him, it would obviously be derivative of all of the photographs, drawings, and video images I have seen. However, if I did not sit down with a few (one, two, three -- I'm not sure) of those images in front of me, but rather drew from my memory of the hundreds of images I have seen, my drawing would not be a copyvio. On the other hand, as Shepherd Fairey found out the hard way, you cannot take a single image and make a drawing from it without infringing and paying for it. I don't know exactly where the dividing line is -- certainly more than one and less than hundreds.

So, I think your image is OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the kind of commentary I'm after, where we work out why it would pass.

Now in this case though, it is a 'drawing', if you like, of a particular high-res hi-def image. I could just as easily take several images though and combine them into one, just as you state, and create a new image entirely. To use rough language to describe the concept, I'd say it's far away from the original, but to articulate the idea properly in cr terminology is what I'd like assistance with.

Myself I tend to think of the images the same as articles, and so you don't copy any source word for word, but you do summarise and so on and end up with something 'far away' from the sources, or far enough anyhow. I just didn't want people who jump out and shriek 'Penyulap used the letter A, they used the letter A! it's a copyvio' so to better define the idea as it relates to this kind of thing is the thrust of the request. Penyulap ☏ 18:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The copyrightable expression in a photograph is not the subject matter in most cases; instead it is the angle chosen, the lighting/shadows, perhaps the pose of the subject if that was directed by the photographer, what the focal point is, and other factors under the control of the photographer. Making a drawing or painting using several photographs as a reference is not necessarily a derivative work of the photographs; what matters is if the drawing or painting incorporated significant elements of the photographer's expression, usually the angle and pose. If your drawing is copying the exact angle from one photograph, using the exact hairstyle and lines as seen in the photo to the point you can identify the exact photographic source, it may be derivative. If your drawing uses an original pose and angle, and you are just using photographs for reference on what the subject basically looks like (a much harder thing to do), then the drawing would not be derivative. It can be a pretty subjective thing but really people would need to see the source photo(s) to give a better answer. For one concrete example (referenced above), the Shepherd Fairey "Hope" poster was basically ruled derivative of an AP photo (see here for comparison) and was ruled to not be fair use. Technically the derivative work ruling was not made (though the not-fair-use ruling was) as it was later settled out of court, but the judge strongly implied that would be the outcome if a settlement did not occur. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

File:乌达木2.png

I've scaled a version down to 50 pixels across, I figure that plus all the rest I've done, which basically reduces the original it was based upon to the barest minimum to describe the bank robber to the identi-kit artist for the news kind of thing, or less actually, then I've scaled it up from the 50 pixels into the image shown here, so would that be a safe way to completely avoid copyvio ? Penyulap ☏ 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the legal section of w:Appropriation art help at all? I would think country of origin of your works and any works claimed to be similar would affect any deletion reviews. If no one can cite an image that is very close to your works and the country of origin then there should be no reason to delete them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Country of origin definitely matters. In Sweden, this painting was not considered a derivative of this photo. Which most sane jurisdictions would of course consider absurd. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

When was that decided? There was a case in 1989 where two drawings weren't considered derivatives of two photos,[1] but the ruling cites laws which were changed quite a lot in the 1990s, so I'm not sure if this is still the case. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the case was deemed so obvious that the police closed the case after a couple of weeks (March/April 2006), and when that decision was appealed, the prosecutor (Ingrid Olsson) refused to take the matter to court (September 2006). After repeated appeals by the photographer, the case was reopened (February 2007) by prosecutor Sven-Eric Alhem, who let it linger until the period of prescription was up (September 2008). —LX (talk, contribs) 05:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, I'd really appreciate it if you stopped blanking out my comments. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry ! there were a few edit conflicts where I was as far as I could see overwriting my own comments, sorry that I killed yours it wasn't my intention (I would certainly say if it was) Penyulap ☏ 22:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that looks like it is enough of a transformation to be a new work, and that was probably what they were talking about it court. The original here is of course made in China/Mongolia because that is where the subject lives/works. Servers in the US, and so on, so finding a method that hits enough birds with the one stone method would be cool. minimus, transform, is that enough ? Penyulap ☏ 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That does make for interesting reading and guidance Canoe1967, cewl !

this is one of the images I might have used, there is the same image in many places I expect, and as this one at the top of the page shows the subject twice, it is itself a doctored image. From either that image or the same image on some other background, that's the basis of the image which is loaded in under the one shown here. Then the one shown here is created from that. Maybe if future requests at the graphics lab ask then I would add colour and so on, but use free textures and colours rather than any part of the original. Penyulap ☏ 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading that page, I figure the new image, or rather, the older 200px one is a transformative artwork, and so it's ok. So it is safe as far as de minimus and transformative goes, just have to work out how to troll proof it from useless DR's :) I'll go ask my friend who does polandballs how to avoid DR's and then do the opposite of whatever they advise. :) Penyulap ☏ 21:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

So the basic idea is to take a copyrighted photo, throw lots of photoshop filters at it, reduce the resolution significantly and then declare it "own work" and PD? Huh. I'm kind of doubtful this would work out in any conceivable way, but if it does, all the better, I guess. --Conti|✉ 22:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think copying someone else's work violates their copyright, even if you scale it down enough. If you're using it for the same purposes, it's not transformative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Conti, yes, that's pretty much the idea, if there is a simple straightforward method to tick enough boxes for enough countries then it's going to solve a lot of problems for a lot of articles. Penyulap ☏ 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That would indeed be pretty useful. But it's also such a simple idea that I'm highly doubtful that it hasn't been tried (and discarded) before. I'm no copyright expert, though, so I'll be happily proven wrong. --Conti|✉ 22:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If it is truly NOT a derivative work (see Jim Woodward's comment above), then it does not matter how good the resolution is. However no amount of shrinking can make a derivative work non-derivative. Dankarl (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a logical argument, a 1 pixel square image can't have copyright, period. But please feel free to take the File:Redacted hot air festival.png sourcing as literal :) there is a point where the cry copyright argument becomes meaningless. Penyulap ☏ 23:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If you scale it down so that the photographer's expression is no longer present, then yes it's OK. But that's likely to be so small as to be useless. Be aware that "transformative" is often taken as to purpose, not necessarily form -- the Obama "Hope" poster looks dramatically different and gives a very different feel, but in the end they are both depictions of a person, so basically the same purpose, and it was not fair use. On the other hand, parody very much transforms the nature of the use -- that is generally more what is deemed transformative. The Swedish painting above would be an interesting case -- it is used to depict the person in part but the focus seems quite a bit different. It would probably be a derivative work but would stand a much better chance at fair use. There was one U.S. case where an artist cut the legs out of model photos from magazines (thus using copyrighted photos) but then arranged them in a completely separate work of art and was sued by the photographs' copyright owners; that was deemed fair use (or perhaps de minimis) since it was relatively small, more irrelevant part of the original photos which were used and the use was very much transformative. As for the photo you linked.... oof. I'd have pretty strong reservations as that very much appears to be the source. If all you did was to apply a set of image transformations to it, then it would be even more likely. Much better to at least draw it with your own hand. Most of the time, copyright law is not a bunch of technicalities where you can find loopholes -- if it "feels" wrong a judge would probably find cause to rule that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I disagree on two points, one is the purpose, the only thing we are after is a description of the person, just an identity. The full colour high def image we don't need, fans need that, they like to see the person they like, they go to some trouble to make aesthetically pleasing collages and use them to decorate their websites and so on. While I make a deliberate attempt to dress up the result with the boy's name in Chinese letters inside the image itself, and a border giving proportion, I seriously doubt they'd accept the image shown here for inclusion on the webpage let alone as a banner, so I can't see it as a replacement for the originals purpose in any way, and the dressing up is my own. Do you feel when it gets out there onto google image that anyone will take an interest in it rather than the originals, or ones one tenth as good ?

The other thing is the method, is it the method or the results, or the effort put into it ? what can matter except the actual final image itself ? A person could enlarge the original image, mix paints precisely and place 800 dots across a canvas with rows to match and make a copy that would certainly be a copyvio when scaled back down to the original size.

A particularly good artist could sketch the subject faster than I can process, draw and touch-up the image and they'd have a better result I think, wouldn't that counter an 'effort' based judgement ? If a poor artist spends weeks, or a good artist spends moments I suggest it doesn't weigh into the final image being a copyvio. If it weighs in, then it does, if not, it doesn't. All or nothing.

Surely the medium used is not the defining argument, we all 'feel' that pencil is no problem, but why not pastel, why not oil, and if those mediums are ok, then why not the modern software as a medium. I would think surely it is the result rather than the effort, the process, or the medium. Penyulap ☏ 03:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere (just came to check my own post) but what a highly strange discussion for a Commons copyright forum. Semi-like "stealing $1000, $10, one penny — where the stealing ends (if it does) and on what exact barrier?" or "if one stole a car and changed its color/number/engine ID, then the stealing never happened and one is still good with God?"...
The digital sketch of a boy — you want it i) as a source of single grayscale pixels or ii) as a digital sketch of a boy (not a particular Bezier curve, not an adult man, a tiger or a building)? Obviously (ii), so drop all this digital filters/quality reduction-increasing buzz. It will not help in the court, it will not help to Wikimedia if say this boy appear on spam cans ads or somewhere else and if boy's parents (or himself when grown) able to reach an American court. Maybe not an immediate danger, but for many years onward potentially. Ancient Greeks say: "ἀεὶ γὰρ οὖν χρόνια μὲν τὰ τῶν θεῶν πως, ἐς τέλος δ᾽ οὐκ" (my trans. "mills of gods grind slowly: slowly but surely"). The ex-USSR countries popular chocolate "Alyonka" went into production back in 1965, and the girl on the package was a 50 years old woman then she filed to the court against the company for the face rights. The court (after many professional criminal expertises) ruled out that the original photo (left) and the the image (right) are of the same origin but the package image "is a collective image and no royalty has to be paid to the face owner". The rather idiotic clause of the court decision is, in my strong opinion, nothing but about the power of money of a multi-billions chocolate company — and I would not count on it as a strong guarantee in case of a US court. To summarize:
* Own is own, stolen is stolen. Wikimedia doesn't give legal advices — including how to bypass obvious copyright rights. IMHO.
* "Obama painting" case is nothing hugely new or US-exclusive. The court decisions may vary by countries, just like with a single color square with rounded corners (a propos that is about "1x1 pixel is not copyrightable" ;-) But the issue and the investigation logic are the same everywhere.
* "Abstract faces" are well demanded in many industries like advertisement, animated speech engines (mimes) etc. For that one uses a standard Model release contract. It is so for sure in California (personally participated), in Russia and 99.99% for the rest of the Berne world. You print it, you make it signed, you fully enjoy the results of your creativity — leaving automated graphics filters/resizeing/etc. in peace alone. --NeoLexx (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I'm being hit with the W:Chewbacca defense although I know it is not your intention, the soup can is too close to the original, it's the same purpose only adjusted for printing labels, no meaningful changes beyond what had to be done. The telephone thing was asking a bunch of ignorant (read the controversy section) citizens for guesses in tldr 'members of the jury, are you all agreed that you are bored yet? raise your hands'. Chewbacca to my query is how I feel about that really, though I know it's not your intention.

I figured there would have to be a logical formulae to follow to produce original work far enough removed to always be considered a new work. Why you'd be required to goto pencil makes no sense as pencil can be photographic quality photographic quality pencil drawings take a look at this or this or this and see that pencil is not relevant, it cannot be the formula.

If I adjust the pose of the subject, change the expression, which is the only way any drawing is not a copyvio, then that should be fine, no ? because you can get away from pencil because that is not it. So the formula would need to be something like change pose, use new textures rather than non-free textures and so on, until it can be somewhat defined what makes a modern medium artwork ok, the same way an old medium artwork is ok, because saying just pencil alone can't be it.

The only possible alternative is to say that certain people cannot be drawn under any circumstance or impose restrictions that don't relate in any meaningful way to copyright law such as the person has to sit for you, otherwise watching video means it's a derivative. Penyulap ☏ 14:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I take the original image, process it but leave it very high res, and then make a small adjustment and all is ok, yes ? Penyulap ☏ 14:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

> I feel like I'm being hit with the W:Chewbacca defense I am sorry if you feel so though I fail to see from where did you see that hit. By a theoretical usage on cans I meant grayscale sketches from this thread, not the original photo. I assume it is not a forum for overall discussions about copyright issues but for discussions about applied copyright questions for Wikimedia Commons thus for the content that "<...> and to make commercial use of the work". So this sketch (if remains on Commons) can be used for cans, political posters etc. Having the question being put into the right perspective, your original question simplifies to: "What is the exact formula of a photo transformation such that the result 100% guarantee does not trigs any identity associations for the photographed person, nor for his/her relatives, nor for any substantial amount of people across the Earth?" Having the question formulated rightly, it is rather easy to come to the obvious conclusion that it seems more productive to search the formula of the universal happiness, of the philosopher's stone or something else more likely reachable ;-)
And the applied copyright questions as Commons might be concerned I believe to be answered in my previous post. --NeoLexx (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

@NeoLexx: The discussion is about the nature of derivative works -- it is Commons policy and a central topic to copyright, so it's not strange at all. Most of the cases you mention have to do with en:personality rights -- not the same thing as copyright, and usually not an issue with non-commercial educational sites, so we don't have model releases for anything. The Apple case is about patents mostly, not copyright. With copyright, it's about the rights of the photographer, not the pictured person. That gets into different areas. But yes, a derivative work is a derivative work even if not blatant and we can't keep one if it is (without permission from the underlying rightsholder). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

> non-commercial educational sites But you (we) declare explicitly that the hosted reviewed images are free to use commercially as long as remain under the same license. Or it is not a policy anymore? --NeoLexx (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"Commercially" only so far as its meaning in copyright law, which is different than the same term in regards to trademark or personality rights. Our definition of "free" is strictly based around copyright; any other rights are non-copyright restrictions and are not subject to the same scrutiny -- in those cases we just make sure our own use conforms to the law. We host several trademarked logos for example -- only ones where the copyright has expired or are below the threshold of originality. In those cases copyright is not an issue, even though it is of course very possible for someone to take the logo and violate trademark. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

> below the threshold of originality Yeah, right... ;-) Would you like to open a discussion about derivative works and the threshold of originality at once in a new thread? :-) I can move from the ruWiki copyright forum — because "Mickey Mouse strikes back" and I do really wonder about this derivative work w/o a separate file representation:

--NeoLexx (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

@Penyulap "the only thing we are after is a description of the person, just an identity" -- right. The photograph and the drawing have the same basic purpose, a visual description of the person, so it would not be very transformative in a fair-use determination. Making a sculpture of a photograph is a substantial change of form, but not necessarily transformative, if it's just another way to depict the same basic idea. See en:transformation (law) or here. Of course Commons does not accept works solely on the basis of fair use anyways (unless perhaps the fair use is permissive enough to use such works commercially -- parody is one of the rare examples), as that type of thing varies tremendously and the above is primarily just the U.S. version (which is relatively permissive). As for your method question, yes it is about the methodology. Copyright is based on the expression originating from a human author; if there is a standard processing of an image which can be automated, that involves no human creativity at all so the result would not really count as a derivative work (which has added creativity and copyright on top of an original, but which still makes use of the original author's expression). The amount of effort does not matter (at least since en:Feist v. Rural) -- a company which took painstaking measurements to create a 3D computer model of a car was not given copyright protection on the model because it was completely based on the measurements. For a photograph, it's the bits under control of the photographer. From the Rogers v. Koons case, Elements of originality in a photograph may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved. From en:Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (the original case which confirmed that photographs are copyrightable, involving a lithograph of a photo of Oscar Wilde), decisions rendering the photograph a protectable "intellectual invention" included: the posing and arrangement of Wilde "so as to present graceful outlines"; the selection and arrangement of background and accessories; the arrangement and disposition of light and shade; and the evocation of the desired expression. If a drawing still contains those elements from the photograph, then it still contains the photographer's expression, and is a derivative work. A snapshot of a street scene can be a bit different -- the photographer had no control over poses, facial expressions, etc. so in that case those would not be part of the photographer's expression, but studio portraits are a different matter. So, choosing the same pose, facial expression, same precise delineations, etc. would mean it is probably a derivative work. It's certainly possible for an artist to make an original drawing just by looking at a few photographs -- the subject is not copyrightable, only the way it's expressed, so if the artist comes up with a new pose and just uses the photographs as a reference of the person's basic likeness, that should be OK. But if you just do some automated processing on a photograph, you are almost certainly going to duplicate some of the photographer's expression, and it's going to be a derivative work. Unfortunately, I think your graphic is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"that involves no human creativity at all" well I think that makes you about as popular with the programming geniuses that create the tools and the graphic artists that use the tools as you'd be in a photographers forum saying exactly the same thing. Thank you for your input, good day. Penyulap ☏ 15:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that can be a fine line as well. Using a computer as a tool is still creativity. But once something gets algorithmic, it's not individual expression. A programmer that creates an effect usable in a graphics program does not have any copyrights over an image where that effect is used (rather just the precise computer code they wrote). An artist who uses that effect as part of an image they create, that is very different, though it would have to be more than just that one effect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• I just came across File:Pamelyn Ferdin 1972b.jpg. A sketch of a person and the author doesn't state if it was done from a photo or not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Doesn't necessarily need to. If we find a photograph it's derivative of though, then it would bring that into question, plus any other similar-looking uploads that user has done. But unless something like that can be shown, assume good faith I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Not every image of a person is the same: Even in photos, people turn to the right or left, their hair moves, the look on their faces change. The choice of when to capture the image and which expression and angle and other disposition to capture is part originality and partly fortuitous in a photograph. If someone who sees the old work and the new work both, and it appears that they are the same shape and composition, despite it being in pencil or paint instead of a photograph, then it's most likely that the old work's creativity is "shining through", and that both the old author and new author have copyright interest in some aspects of the new work. Here is an example that shows what happens with this sort of thing: en:Barack Obama "Hope" poster#Origin and copyright issues (2008–2012) — A famous poster in the 2008 U.S. election. Shepard Fairey created this poster as stencil art, using custom-made stencils. Still, the judge in the copyright (civil) case told Fairey that the original photograph copyright holder (Associated Press or Mannie Garcia) would probably win the court case against him if he didn't settle. He settled the civil case, but later pled guilty to criminal charges about lying and creating and destroying evidence about which photograph he really used. --Closeapple (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

How /when to enter scanned file of written permission by author to upload

I have a photo (of an insect) taken by a man in 80's. It is not feasible for him to send an email re copyright. He has signed a written copy of the permission for me to upload and specified that he is the owner and his copyright information with the recommended form. I have scanned the signed form and it is ready to upload. How and where should I upload this scanned file with his permission. I don't see a way to upload the scanned permission file at the same time I upload the photo. RMKerr17 (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

upload the scanned letter using the name of the insect image. Then open the new file page, look for the upload a new version of this file link, and upload the insect image over the top and you're done. Penyulap ☏ 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Instead of compromising either your contact details, the details of the copyright holder and especially their signature by uploading it publicly to Wikimedia Commons, you can email permissions-commonswikimedia.org where a volunteer can validate the details and give a ticket to the image without having to make all personal details public. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Idea to get a ticket - I did just upload the file of copyright as per first suggestion. How can I remove the file? RMKerr17 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Speedydelete should work. Make sure you still have your own copy though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You can attach the image to the OTRS email, it may be enough, while there are a great many signatures on commons and it is often done this way, it is better safe than sorry, especially if the old man has lots of money I guess, or a particularly fine butterfly collection his arch enemies colleagues are jealous of. Penyulap ☏ 02:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I almost forgot, that the image underneath, once it is deleted is still available to the admins to view (and therefore check permission). You can add a note to the information on the page saying it is there, or if for some reason you'd rather it is not there, ask for it to be oversighted, that way only an even smaller handful of people can see the information. Penyulap ☏ 02:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RMKerr17, I've deleted the scan as it contains personal contact information. This is something you should never post on a site as heavily trafficked (made worse by search engine indexing crawlers) as Commons. Attach the scan and file to an email and send it to COM:OTRS. They'll assign the image a ticket number and make it clear that the image has adequate evidence of permission to be hosted on Commons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RMKerr17, I'd like to apologise to you and your friend for the poor advice that I've given you, I didn't intend any harm. The method should be used in cases where there are no privacy concerns, where the subject is long dead or it contains the details of a business and so on. Sorry RMKerr17. Penyulap ☏ 12:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

HI. Thanks to Fastily for the quick help. Very much appreciated. This is my first time to send photos to wikimedia commons. I have several more questions. 1. By sending email - May I assume the email should be sent from a regular email account? 2. Am I correct in understanding that I should attach both the permission scanned file AND the photo file to the email? 3. I have four photos I want to enter into wikimedia commons. Last weekend on another board I was told one permission signature could cover them all. Should I send the four photo files in four separate emails each time with the permission file attached? Thank you. RMKerr17 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Depending on how his release was worded one OTRS ticket number may cover all four. Your email to OTRS can come from any email account as they are verifying the document and not you. If images are prevously posted on a website I think they usually want an email from the same domain to verify. The OTRS volunteer that handles your email should be able to answer the above questions better than I. --Canoe1967 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

HI all. I have now be able to upload four photos. Thank you for the help. RMKerr17 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo from w:Bulldog Drummond (1929 film)

Can someone take a look at this image that has been uploaded to Wikipedia? It was labeled as Fair Use, but someone recently added the note to its page that it is in the public domain. Can someone clarify this? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically, there are two requirements in order to be PD-US-no notice. 1) published between 1923 & 1977, and 2) No copyright notice on the document. This image may have been published, but there is no proof. If we're being sticklers about it, unless it can be shown to actually have been published rather than sitting in a drawer since 1929, we can't really say it was published. While a copyright notice doesn't appear on the image as we have it, it's quite possible that a copyright notice appeared on a border that was cropped, or on the reverse. We can't be sure. Again, if we're being sticklers about it, no notice is at best a definite maybe. It all boils down to how strict we want to get. – JBarta (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example that passes both requirements beyond any reasonable doubt. We have the entire document, front and back with a dated newspaper clipping taped to the back proving it was published (look in the file history at the original upload). – JBarta (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Heirs-license

I have a question about the Heirs-license. Assuming I have a legally inherited media (family photos) never published before and I released it as say

NeoLexx as the heir of the creator of this work hereby publishes it under the following license:

Is it all or will I be contacted by Commons in order to disclose my personality and to provide some legal proof of the declared possession? I am residing in Russia. --NeoLexx (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that you are a heir of the author (photographer) of those photos? Ruslik (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only some family photos but also some amateur paintings made at the end of his life. The person seems notable well enough for WP but obviously I am willing to provide my full personal information and the legal proof of my rightful possession neither to Jimbo nor to some anonymous volunteers. I assume my unwillingness is fully understandable :-) --NeoLexx (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

An additional question is about contributions like this one. It is rather obvious that the heir wanted to donate under CC-BY-SA, but simply used the wrong license PD-heirs that takes no arguments. It is understandable as PD-heirs is all around in search results when Heirs-license needs to be pinpointed (and had no Russia translation atop of it). So the right contributor intentions would be like:

Шуйская as the heir of the creator of this work hereby publishes it under the following license:

but now formally that would be a move from PD under CC-BY-SA and I don't know if it's technically accepted. --NeoLexx (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Whom do you attribute when using a CC-BY-SA image, the author or the heir? This isn't entirely clear. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As long as the image is not previously published, and there is no good reason to doubt your good faith (e.g. obviously professional-looking photo), no proof via OTRS is necessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• > As long as the image is not previously published, and there is no good reason to doubt your good faith — OK, my understanding as well.
• > obviously professional-looking photo — did Commons formulate some formal criteria for a "professional-looking photo"? For instance if the person is sitting quietly in some interior and smiley looking to the camera, is it professional-looking or just an obvious way to take a photo of your relative?
• > Whom do you attribute when using a CC-BY-SA image, the author or the heir? — I assume it fully depends on the desire of the uploader by the rule that no personality disclosure can be enforced on WP participants (and stating that say user Anonymous2013 is a heir of said John W. Dow is an obvious partial personality disclosure). --NeoLexx (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

photos for proof of Navy Vessel Name origin

I have had exchanges with "Trapist the Monk" regarding the validity of my claim that the USS Blueback (SS326 and S581) were named for the Blueback salmon, which is also commonly know as the Sockeye salmon, and not for a trout. I have two photos I have taken, One is of the commissioning plaque of the Blueback SS581. The other is a page out of the memorial booklet for her decommissioning ceremony. Both are public property, no copyright involved. "Trapist the Monk" and one other staff type editor (not sure of titles here) told me to upload the photos. However, I want to double check what I need to say or do before I upload them. Noeckerbmc (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The plaque and booklet will be in public domain if created by the US government or its employees. Ruslik (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

IOS logo

I found this at www.copyright.gov:

Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VAu000465203 / 2003-02-27
Application Title: The IOS logo.
Title: Image of sound.
Copyright Claimant: Iman Jones, Emile Jones
Date of Creation: 2002
Authorship on Application: Stephan Coleman, 1977-.

Names: Jones, Iman
       Jones, Emile
       Coleman, Stephan, 1977-

What exactly is this? The first version of IOS appears to be from 2007 (see w:iOS version history) but the registration was in 2003 and the logo was already created in 2002. Is this registration for File:Apple iOS.svg or is it for some other logo? IOS is also an abbreviation for other things: w:IOS (disambiguation). --Stefan4 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Title: Image of sound" = Ios = IOS logo? Logo for "Image of sound"?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, IOS = Image of Sound, a band. This is probably the logo subject to that registration. Nothing to do with Apple. Эlcobbola _talk 23:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright overlay?

Can images that have a copyright overlay on them (such as File:Mike Carey.jpg) be used? The license for the image appears to be correct, but the actual overlay on the image makes me think it's not able to be used on Commons. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they can be used. (The watermak/orverlay/whatever may be removed. Cf. Template:Watermark.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info — X96lee15 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the watermark. It may take a day or so for the cache to show it though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

PD-Art files without a source

I posted a question at COM:VP, at Commons:Village_pump#PD-Art_files_without_a_source, which could use some input from COM:VPC regulars. (Perhaps I should have put it here, but being such a general question, I put it there.) Rd232 (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick questions about URAA extensions

Couple of questions about File:Adéle Weman (Ebba Masalin, 1932).jpg:

1. Am I right in thinking this is copyrighted in the U.S?
2. If so, what is the term of URAA-extended copyrights? I am so confused about this :(

Thanks you, –⁠moogsi (blah) 16:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Most likely, yes. (Unless it was simultaneously published in the U.S. and new renewed.)
2. The term is the same as regular U.S. copyright terms as if all registration and renewal formalities had been followed. In this case I believe copyright would expire in January, 2028.

Hope that helps. Kaldari (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Tourist licence

I just made File:Photograph of tourists permission form.png for tourists and other photographers. Is the wording ok for most, if not all countries? Feel free to edit and overwrite. I would like to keep it as simple as possible but still a legal document.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The form tells that all rights are transferred. In many countries, you can't transfer moral rights by any means other than inheritance. I'm not sure if the form needs to account for that. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we re-word it to photographer rights then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's missing an apostrophe. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest the following rewording?

I was asked by the camera owner named below to take some photographs on his or her behalf. To the greatest extent legally allowed by the laws applicable to the location stated below and all other jurisdictions throughout the world, I agree to permanently transfer free of charge all copyrights and other intellectual property rights in the photographs I have taken to the camera owner.

Photographer's name and signature:

Location:

Date:

Camera owner's name and signature:

I'm not exactly sure what this form is for, but if it is to enable files to be uploaded to the Commons you may want to add a note to the form explaining why the photographer is being asked to sign this document. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I originally made it because we have images of commons users that are the subject as well and claim 'own work'. These images don't show a remote although timers can be used they are unlikely in some images. See:File:Mikael Häggström - Uppsala - April 2010 (full).png as an example. Tourist pictures were mentioned so I made the image with the tourist name. I will copy/paste your text to the talk page of the image and we may be better off developing it there to a state that it is a form acceptable by commons and/or OTRS. Some countries the rights revert after 20 years or so, I am told. We may wish to add that if the rights do revert then the license coverts to the latest version of CC-by type the fiscal year before the expiry. I don't think the camera owner's signature is as important as a third party witness. The signature of a witness should carry more weight. Move to talk page of the image then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

a photo that's simultaneously copyright (in some way), copyleft, and in the public domain

File:Carol self portrait in Willard Hotel.jpg was uploaded by User:Gary reals. It's available via the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2

File:Carol M. Highsmith self portrait in Willard Hotel.jpg is a cropped version of the same photo, again uploaded by Gary reals. Of it, we read both:

1. The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed.
2. This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Carol M. Highsmith. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: Carol M. Highsmith grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Well, which?

A look at User talk:Gary reals suggests that GR didn't know what he was doing.

Highsmith is in the process of donating a vast number of digitized/digital photos to the Library of Congress. This page at the LoC says, rather obscurely, [Highsmith's] generosity in dedicating the rights to the American people for copyright free access also makes this Archive a very special visual resource. I suspect that this is just a careless way to say Highsmith's generosity to the American people in placing these photographs in the public domain also makes [etc]; however, I'm not sure.

Here's the full description of a sample photo in the collection. It doesn't mention the term "public domain"; it does say "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication" and (in red!) "Rights assessment is your responsibility". I can make guesses about what all of this might imply for these two jpegs in Commons, but I'd rather leave the matter to people more experienced than I am.

Incidentally, I'm surprised that a file here can be marked as both (A) copyright and (B) public domain. Does no bot search for such contradictions? -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it would be difficult to program a bot to do what you suggest. The two files are not identical to each other. They are actually of different sizes ("Carol M. Highsmith self portrait in Willard Hotel.jpg" appears to be a crop of "Carol self portrait in Willard Hotel.jpg"), so a bot might find it hard to identify them as similar to each other. Until the technology improves, cases like this will only be detectable by humans. As for the licensing issue, my view is that "Carol self portrait in Willard Hotel.jpg" is improperly licensed unless there is evidence from the LoC website or elsewhere that the Highsmith photographs are being released under those licences. Uploaders are not at liberty to slap on to files any licence they see fit. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have explained myself poorly. We have two files. One is a derivative of the other, but I don't expect a bot to notice this. Most simply, one of these files both (A) tells potential users that they must credit the copyright holder and (B) is described as being in the public domain. Both (A) and (B) are stated via template; maybe it's just because I'm blissfully ignorant of the workings of bots, but I'd have guessed that "flag any cooccurrence of templates X and Y" would be programmable. -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out that it is entirely possible for a file to be public domain in the US and under copyright in other locations. That is probably not going on with the Highsmith images but a bot would have to allow for the possibility. Another case would be Flickr images bearing a CC licensed, later asserted to be public domain, perhaps because of US government origin. Since that is sometimes a close call, it is advisable to leave the license tag up when adding a PD tag. Dankarl (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hoary, I think I misunderstood you. I guess you are referring to seemingly inconsistent templates applied to a single file. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Liability

I was wondering how safe it is to use the images found on Wikimedia Commons because if someone has submitted copyrighted material and falsely presented it as public domain, anyone who uses the material is also liable as "ignorance is no excuse" as I have been told in no uncertain terms, and that the onus is on the user to ascertain its copyright status.

Are there any measures that protect users from this liability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.245.172 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 5 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Nope. --Fæ (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "measures". The exact nature of liability for good-faith copyright infringements will be different in different jurisdictions. If you're using something online non-commercially, then the risk is fairly low, because taking it down will usually satisfy the copyright holder. If you're using something offline and/or commercially, then it's more likely money might have to change hands, if the copyright holder complains. Ultimately you have to make your own judgement, including on whether to consult a lawyer on the risks involved. Rd232 (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If I were the publisher of a book or magazine, I would ask at this forum before using them. If we are in doubt then submit them for deletion review. If they survive our scrutiny there, then that DR will help lots if you are ever taken to court, I assume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Paraguayan Guarani

Category:Paraguayan Guarani hosts images of coins and banknotes from Paraguay. Does anyone know about the copyright status of that currency? Unless official works such as banknotes and coins are exempt from copyright in Paraguay, we need to delete the whole category. De728631 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now nominated these files for deletion here. De728631 (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Future

I'm wondering what use {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Future}} and others like it in Category:User licensing templates might be? These were intended originally for text contributions, but as worded, they can't be applied to media uploads, can they? Because such uploads will always have their own licenses, which would count as "unless otherwise stated"... Rd232 (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Licenses for individual files might get lost or deleted, or never inserted, just see Category:Media without a license: needs history check. Such templates added to user pages might be useful for stating the default license you use. But in great majority of cases such templates seem quite useless, but harmless. --Jarekt (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Custom license

Dear colleagues,

I have been pointed today to the latest invention of JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk · contribs) regarding licensing: User:JÄNNICK Jérémy/Licence JÄHNICK 1.0.

There are several issues here:

1. This user uses a custom template, User:JÄNNICK Jérémy/Licence (currently 8961 transclusions)
   1. which is not subst-ed and is changing over time, effectively relicensing files under more restrictive terms ;
   2. which is used retroactively on his older files (example, I have not yet checked the extent), definitely restricting the freedom given to the users;
2. This user now comes up with this new license, User:JÄNNICK Jérémy/Licence JÄHNICK 1.0, which clearly aims for financial gain (it is described as a CC-BY-SA where you are free to reuse as long as you pay the photograph 10€…) and is claimed by its author to be compatible with COM:L. For good measure, his files are multi-licensed with {{GFDL-1.2}} and CC-BY-NC-ND.

I am not sure what is the best way to deal with 1/, but I will − probably through a bot request to

1. re-add former licenses before its replacement with the custom licence;
2. substitute the custom template in its version of when it was applied

I am a bit more at loss with 2/. I do not really care about the whims of users who fancy themselves licence-writers ; but I do care about the harm that may be done to Wikimedia Commons through this.

(I am aware that as long as his files are multilicensed with a free licence − here GFDL 1.2, of course − they are acceptable under COM:L. This is not my question [though much could be said about this]).

I do not recall any previous case where we actually dealt with such a situation (though we do have a lot of crappy custom licences around, for sure >_<), so I would welcome any relevant pointer. I would be glad to have your thoughts on this.

Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Pour le point n° 1, j'aimerais en effet qu'un bot vienne replacer, au dessus de la nouvelle licence, la licence DP que j'avais retiré, comme indiqué sur ma PU, je n'ai su qu'en juin 2012 qu'on pouvait ajouter des licences supplémentaires, mais pas en retirer.

Je m'exprime ici en français puisque je serai plus précis, mais il est possible de me traduire. Produisant énormément de photos, 23000 en deux ans, leur création représente un coût assez élevé dans le déplacement, mais aussi le matériel. Le temps que je passe sur Commons et Wikipédia ne me permet pas de travailler ailleurs, mes revenus sont donc limités, mais pas mon temps. Après bien m'être renseigné sur les licences libres, il s'avère que le prix à payer n'est pas un critère discriminant, puisque pour être libre, une licence doit offrir les fameuses quatre libertés. Aussi, j'ai bien relu tout un tas de pages sur Commons, et le cas de l'introduction d'une licence libre payante ne s'est jamais produit, il n'a donc jamais été envisagé en neuf ans. Comme je n'ai pas trouvé de licence libre payante, je me suis donc décidé à en créer une en me basant sur la version transposée en français de la Cc-by-sa 3.0.

Cette licence est utilisée en multi-licence, mais elle est elle-même libre, et sur Commons, après avoir lu Commons:À propos des licences, on voit que pour être acceptée, une photographie doit être sous licence libre, mais il n'est pas fait mention du caractère payant ou gratuit, parce qu'une licence libre n'est pas obligatoirement gratuite. La licence JÄHNICK 1.0 offre ces quatre libertés, mais est payante à 10 €. Une fois l'œuvre payée, elle devient gratuite. Je me suis également basé sur les écrits du projet GNU.

Pour résumer, j'ai trouvé une faille, et j'ai décidé de l'exploiter. Non pas pour m'enrichir, mais pour payer mes déplacements et mon matériel. Avec mon nombre très important de fichiers, j'ai très rapidement su que la question allait surgir, et je pensais même que ça allait arriver plus tôt.

Bref, selon moi, une licence libre n'est pas forcément gratuite, et faire payer un prix modique permet d'enrichir Commons (tout en sachant que je peux moi-même céder mon travail sous d'autres termes). Donnez votre avis, tout en sachant que c'est un cas qui ne s'était jamais présenté jusqu'à présent, et qui pose la question du financement des projets des Wikimédiens.

To sum up Jérémy statement (with some extensive quotes):

Producing all the photos he produces, he argues that it costs him (in travel and equipment) more than his income, since he spends all his time for Commons & Wikipedia. Based on his research about free licenses, he states that paying money is not an issue for licenses to be free, as long as they offer the four freedoms. He claims that using a paying free license is a first on Commons, and has never been thought of. Thus, he created his own license, the “JÄHNICK 1.0” based on the French version of the CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Though he uses it in conjunction with other licenses, he claims the “JÄHNICK 1.0” is a free license, acceptable under COM:L. He claims that « to be acceptable under COM:L, one sees that a photograph must be freely licensed, but being gratis or charged for is not mentionned, since a license does not have to be gratis. The “JÄHNICK 1.0” offers the four freedoms, except that it is charged 10€. Once the work is paid for, it becomes gratis. I also based myself on writings from the GNU project. »

« To sum up, I found a loophole, and I decided to exploit it. Not to get rich, but to compensate for me travel and equipment costs ».

Jean-Fred (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There a lot of mingling issues here (the license, the spirit of restricting reuses, the economic model of FLOSS media production), so let’s make clearer my first question to the licensing experts: « can the “JÄHNICK 1.0” be considered a free license acceptable under COM:L ? » Jean-Fred (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You're misreading http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html; it says "With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free." With a free license, you can ask Wikimedia Commons for however much you want before uploading the file, but once you've uploaded it, users can copy it without paying you or even notifying you. (It's unlikely that Commons will pay for your photos, but that's what this is about. Note that this was written a long time ago; the earliest copyright date is 1996, before Internet access, and quick Internet access, was nigh universal, which is why it talks about distributing things on CD-ROM.)

This is not an acceptable license under COM:L.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it COM:L requires that licences should not require the user to contact the original author - at a very minimum this would make payment impossible. Then if it's first use licencing what Prosfilaes holds the first use is the foundation who you are licensing to redistribute and they aren't going to pay, finally your actual licence is confusingly worded the short form implies all users have to pay the fee and I'm struggling to follow the long form but it appears all re-users have to pay in it as well even if it was distributed to them freely. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I always thought that User:JÄNNICK Jérémy/Licence license is mostly {{GFDL-1.2}} with a lot of "fluff' and I also find it troubling that although {{GFDL-1.2}} remains, the "fluff" is changing. I guess that as long as we take {{GFDL-1.2}} the licenses based on it are acceptable. I share Jean-Fred's uneasiness about unsubstituted custom templates and agree that the best way would be to set them in stone by adding them directly to the files. The approach of using {{GFDL-1.2}} + non-free license (usually CC-by-nc-nd) seems to be gaining popularity, see {{GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc 3.0}}, User:Ralf Roletschek/Lizenz, User:Thombansen/Lizenz, User:A455bcd9/Bac à sable, User:Olei/license and many others. {{GFDL-1.2}} is a documentation license not very useful for images. May be we should retire {{GFDL-1.2}} for new uploads, or only allow it in combination with other free license. --Jarekt (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. See User:Colin/AppropriatelyLicensed for the relevant proposal. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Se référer à Commons:Bistro#Licence libre payante. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

All right, following this discussion, and another one on the French village pump, Jérémy is retring his “JÄHNICK 1.0” license from his files and moving to a CC-BY-SA license + an acceptable credit template. We will work out together the details and launch the bots. Thanks to everyone for your input. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Are there any licenses that suggest donation? If carefully worded to be clear that the payment is entirely voluntary, that ought to be compatible with COM:L, no? Rd232 (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

FOP USA

Category:Trophies of baseball may need a mass DR. Same lines as the WWE trophies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've started two trophy DRs today (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Badefa and Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User talk:Stefan4), but it seems that there are lots of other photos of trophies around. USA trophies are more tricky due to copyright formalities which might put some old ones in the public domain, although it may be hard to tell whether a trophy has been "published" or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Do 3D works like statues count from date of completion, date of unveiling, or phases of the moon? Does anyone have that law handy?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In the US, publication on statues pre-1978 started when they displayed in a way that didn't stop photography or people standing their drawing it. After that, you actually had make copies and sell them to the public.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright material INTENDED to be seen by as many people as possible - can I use it in Wikipedia ?

There is a Wikipedia article about British actor Freddie Jones.

I live in his home town and I have just added to the article text to mention that a plaque in honour of Freddie is located in the local town hall.

I would like to include a photograph of the plaque, but I'm not sure about the copyright position.

As regards the plaque :-

a) it was produced in association with the British Film Institute under the '100 years of cinema' project.

b) it is posted in a public building and is obviously designed to be seen by the widest possible audience.

I took the photo of the plaque myself and intend to make no restrictions on its use.

Could you please advise if I can use this image in Wikipedia ? If so,how do I classify it from the copyright point-of-view ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRR SoT (talk • contribs) 06:33, 9 April 2013‎ (UTC)

The fact that a work is intended to be seen widely does not affect its copyright status; it does not magically enter into the public domain because of that. The authors of books and music naturally intend for their works to be read and listened to widely, but that fact alone does not mean that the authors give up their copyright in the works. Whether we can have your photograph of the plaque in the Commons or not depends on what is on the plaque. If there is a non-free photograph of Freddie Jones on it, or so much descriptive text that it cannot be considered de minimis, then I'm afraid your photograph will have to be regarded as an unauthorized derivative work of the copyrighted plaque and can't be uploaded. We might be able to have the photograph if the copyrightable elements (images and text) are de minimis, or if the plaque has been created in such a way that it amounts to a work of "artistic craftsmanship" (e.g., the letters are inscribed on to the plaque or the plaque is a mosaic) as in the UK freedom of panorama applies to such works. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, I think. If a work contains text sufficiently long to have its own copyright, then the fact that it appears on a work of artistic craftsmanship does not remove the text's copyright -- a photograph of such a work would still be a DW. FOP does not apply to text in the UK, no matter how it appears. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. I should have been clearer on this point. If there is an extended piece of text on a signboard that can be considered a work of artistic craftsmanship, there are in fact two forms of copyright involved: copyright in the artistic work, and copyright in the text as a literary work. Freedom of panorama would apply to the artistic work but not to the literary work. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

All images of the Batmobile need to be deleted

We have about 50 images of the Batmobile on Commons. Per the recent decision in DC Comics v. Mark Towle, the Batmobile is covered by DC Comics character copyrights and any derivative representations of the Batmobile (including replicas) require DC Comics' approval in order to be distributed. I don't have time to do the proper nomination of all 50+ images, so if someone else could do that it would be greatly appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This should also be applied to Category:Herbie I'm afriad. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I would in no way apply it to Herbie -- that is a straight normal utilitarian car with some custom detailing. It's a lot less distinctive than a Batmobile and would not get the same level of character copyright protection, per the Avela vs Warner Bros ruling a couple years back. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If the job is too big for us mere mortals, I think I know who to call ;) I don't think it applies to Herbie at all, they don't own the VW itself which is basically a useful item, the most useful item in it's category :) and the only parts that change the VW into herbie is racing stripes, 53, and moving headlights. Those aren't original enough to be qualified as copyrightable. (lots of character cars have moving headlamps). The batmobile is not based on any useful item, it is a work of art in itself. It is certainly an original work, and I would love to find out for myself if it is a useful item for shopping and cruising :) Penyulap ☏ 18:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Das ist mal ieder so typisch Olksagen. Die Olksagen AG beansprucht ja ein alleiniges Recht auf folgenden Sachen:

1. Die Kombination aus dem zeiundzanzigsten und dem dreiundzanzigsten (Groß-)Buchstaben des lateinischen Alphabets,
2. den entsprechenden .de-Domainnamen (für den DENIC die Registrierungregeln ändern musste),
3. das Markenzeichen der Olksagen AG (das meistens in Blau eingefärbt ist),
4. alle on außen sichtbaren Ersatzteile, die für Fahrzeuge der Marke Olksagen bestimmt sind,
5. alle Ersatzteile, die das Markenzeichen der Olksagen AG tragen,
6. alle dreidimensionalen Darstellungen on Fahrzeugen der Marke Olksagen,
7. alle Bedienungsanleitungen, die on Olksagen geschrieben orden sind,
8. alle Erbefilme, in denen für Fahrzeuge der Marke Olksagen georben ird,
9. alle Ausstattungs-, Modell- und Preislisten, die on Olksagen geschrieben orden sind, und
10. alle Bilder, die in den Sachen unter den Nummern 7. bis 9. enthalten sind.

Jede Person, die ohne Erlaubnis on der Olksagen AG die Sachen unter den Nummern 1. bis 10. erendet, hat über kurz oder lang damit zu rechnen, on Olksagen erklagt zu erden; außerdem kann das Gericht im Urteil festlegen, dass diese unerlaubt erendeten Sachen eingezogen oder sogar ernichtet erden. Muss Ikimedia Commons dann auch alle Bilder on Fahrzeugen der Marke Olksagen löschen? Schließlich ist die Olksagen AG nicht alt genug dafür, dass irgendelche ihrer Sachen, die Schöpfungshöhe aufeisen, gemeinfrei georden sind. --84.61.169.81 20:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This lawsuit wasn't started by Volkswagen, so I don't know why you're ranting about "typisch (V)Olks(w)agen". And photos are not three-dimensional depictions, so I don't think we need to remove any Volkswagen photos.

Der Fall in den USA wurde nicht von Volkswagen vor Gericht gebracht, daher verstehe ich nicht, was du mit "typisch (V)Olks(w)agen" meinst. Außerdem sind Fotos keine dreidimensionale Art der Darstellung, daher glaube ich kaum, dass wir Fotos von entsprechenden Autos entfernen müssen. (Übrigens, ist deine Tastatur kaputt?) De728631 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought, and I hope to be corrected if I'm wrong, that the 2-d 3-d stuff means if you go outside and take a picture of your car, that's a 3D thingy, but if you take a photo of a car on a billboard, that's a 2D thingy. So the batman stuff is pretty much all 3D, and all the VW pics of herbie-like cars are 3D. Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping that VW's 3-d claim mentioned by IP84 refers to sculptures, 3-d replicas and such, not necessarily to 2-d derivates of original cars. Otherwise we might want to nominate a few more categories. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This site explains a recent VW case in Germany. A manufacturer of vintage style tin plates with Volkswagen images including the brand "Volkswagen", the logo and depictions of the Beetle and an old Volkswagen van was sued by Volkswagen. The court ordered to halt the production. Add to that the practice of Volkswagen serving notices in many similar cases. So far this has apparently only been affecting the commercial use of Volkswagen items, so I don't see how Commons would be affected. I suppose the WMF is not responsible for the off-WMF use of files hosted here, and derivative works like posters, ads, etc. are routinely deleted anyway. De728631 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

well, I hope someone can confirm for us, I don't have much knowledge on that one yet. Penyulap ☏ 22:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about something that Canoe1967 suggested below for the Batmobile images, i.e. a trademark tag. As a precautionary measure we could slap a {{Trademarked}} on all images showing a Volkswagen-related subject. De728631 (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I shall start the request for you. Penyulap ☏ 18:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we put File:Protest info image draft.png in all the articles that use the images?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have a strong moral case to protest in this instance. As Penyulap said, the Batmobile is something of a work of art, so it doesn't seem unreasonable for DC Comics to be able to enforce copyrights on it. Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Should we email them for official licenced images for commons? The one by Jennifer Greylock is the most used, I think. They may let us keep it with their licence on her image of their 3D sculpture. Otherwise those articles will look rather bare. I doubt we have any FOP images unless it left the country. Is it all models or just one year?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Too late to stop me I'm on a rampage !!! MwaWahAhahHAhahahaha (cough) actually Russavia has stepped in to save the day with FOP in AU on one of his uploads. FOILED AGAIN !!!

File:BatmobileBegins.jpg would be worth investigating to see where that location is. Penyulap ☏ 19:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the road sign in the background, it was taken in Australia. And the photographer states that he's living in Sydney [2], so this would be {{FoP-Australia}}. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Does Aus FOP allow temp display images?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It does exempt works "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place", which would seem not to apply to anything with wheels –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've done the requests for some (most) of the pics, leaving out ones that are arguably de minimus, or where I'm not sure, I've nominated but withdrawn those like FOP AU, and that should leave you with a more manageable task Kaldari. Penyulap ☏ 20:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place" mean they need to be permanent displays for the FOP exemption?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that in one of the deletion discussions. It may be that a car used for a single promotional event is not static enough to be a case of FOP. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it refers to touring/traveling displays of statues and other 3D works. Permanent would be months or more not like traveling ones like the King Tut gold, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I have no opinion guys, just un-strike them at the DR's and revert my reverts as you wish. My objective is to turn the 50+ images into something much more manageable for Kaldari, per his original request. No reason why, with all this fantastic help, we can't get the whole category cleaned out today. Note, I haven't nominated them all, I've only nominated the easiest. So please, add and subtract as you please. Penyulap ☏ 21:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a photograph of something is different than an actual replica. In general we allow photographs of costumes (I've never seen a court case saying those are a problem), but actually making an unauthorized costume is a very different as there have been several instances where a costume maker lost a case. A character copyright is *much* stronger where the character is a fully-copyrighted drawing in the first place; having similar clothes as someone in a movie is different, and those would not be nearly as protected. This is different than a normal sculpture where everything in the object is copyrightable expression; the entirety of the car is not copyrighted, just the non-utilitarian aspects. Normally a photograph has to concentrate on those copyrightable aspects to be infringing -- per the Ets-Hokin U.S. court case, a photo of a bottle which has a copyrightable label is not derivative, but a photo which concentrated on that label could be. I'm not sure what to make of this situation; it's a bit odd. Under virtually all situations photos like this should be fine, but I'm wondering about situations like a postcard or calendar containing such photos. That may be more of a trademark situation (thinking the postcard came as part of the movie marketing), but the question here is if it could be a copyright problem. Really tough situation. As for the FoP angle, that is also tough. If it were a straight sculpture, no way is it permanent, unless the car itself was placed indefinitely in public (say in a museum as part of the permanent collection). On the other hand the entire car is not the copyrightable aspect here, it is the non-utilitarian aspects and I guess the character part, and those are permanently attached to the car. Kind of weird in all respects and I'm not entirely sure the court case is a slam-dunk reason we should delete them all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to email a judge and get a ruling on his ruling? Does WMF legal need to look into this?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not possible to get a ruling from a judge, no. No idea about WMF -- they have given some guidance (basically summarized existing law and rulings) on some subjects before, but it's at their discretion and availability. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we keep them all then? DC Comics can contact WMF if they have issues with them. We may want to put trademark and personality rights tags on them if they are 'characters'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Batman doesn't have personality rights psst ! it's because 'officially' he doesn't exist in 'real life' to keep his identity safe. Penyulap ☏ 02:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Batman is a trademark though, which is roughly comparable and stronger. But that does not affect the "free" determination, which is more about if the photographs themselves could be derivative works. It is definitely not clear-cut (I can see some arguments either way) but I'm not sure we have an actual court precedent for a situation like this. Photos of toys and sculpture, yes there is precedent, but photos like this, not sure I remember anything. People have definitely been found guilty (on both trademark and copyright grounds) for making unauthorized costumes of copyrighted characters, so the Batmobile ruling doesn't surprise me at all, but I'm not sure I've seen a ruling that photos of someone wearing a costume are derivative (which might give some further guidance here). I'm always a bit leery of deleting items without having some concrete situation to back it up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On a different note... The batmobile may be a vehicle but so is the Millenium Falcon. The Falcon is fictional and so is most of the batmobile. The car is just a model of that fictional vehicle made from a one off prototype of which many aren't operable like the Falcon. It just happens this one was operable. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it seems the looming hole in our batman categories may be something we can address, I can twist arms and pull stings and see if I can get this incredible image uploaded, I know people ;) I've been in touch. Leave it to me. Featured pic in featured articles here we come. Penyulap ☏ 05:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

While the '66 Batmobile may be considered a work of art - it's pretty similar to the utilitarian Lincoln Futura with slight differences (Bonnet Ridges and subsequent grill changes, Flared Arches, Rooftop vents, Jet engine thing on back) and all those things are in themselves utilitarian not artistic. It feels like there should be a separate judgement on that case, what about Category:Knight Rider it's a similar level of customisation on a utilitarian vehicle? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

@Stuart. Is the Lincoln Futura utiltarian if it is just a one off prototype? I think many of these prototypes aren't functional so court case may have those images deleted as well. w:George Barris (auto customizer) actually created it. Did he sign the rights as sculptor over to DC I wonder?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That Court Case won't affect Futura images as their copyright has nothing to do with DC (whether we can find original pictures of the Futura which were published and not renewed is a different issue). The interpretation of the law as it stands appears to be that a working prototype (like the Futura was) is not eligible for copyright under the utilitarian grounds, but representations of it are (so we can't use screencaps of it from It Started with a Kiss until 2032 when its 47 year copyright extension runs out.)

Barris' contract to produce the car reads

7. Any and all right, title and interest in and to the design of Batmobile I resulting from the application of the required Batmobile features in and to Owner’s prototype Lincoln chassis, save and except the name “Batmobile” and the Batmobile features set forth in Article 10 hereof and in the drawings and exhibits attached hereto, and of the completed Batmobile provided for in Article 2 thereof, shall forever be vested in and Owned jointly by Owner and Producer, subject only to any and all right, title and interest of National Periodical Publications, Inc. . . . in and to said Batmobile features in said design.

To me that reads that DC don't have copyright in the work as a whole, but only in any design elements taken from the comic and implemented by Barris. In terms of the whole Barris jointly shares ownership with Greenway and Fox, but in the summary it's not made clear which of the design elements reported as being infringed originated in the comic (perhaps the logos). Then I'm not sure that the whole is copyrightable as an auto-mobile body, so photographs can't be considered derivative - the case centres around parts which are derivative of the designs (which are copyrightable) . I'm with Carl Lindberg here, it's a confusing ruling and not definitely applicable to our photographs. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Good plan, @Penyulap. Can you get that one uploaded and licensed? At least we could keep the category if we have an image in it. The way I read FOP Mexico they allow for temporary display as well. I sux at Spainish though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's looking good, I've got my people talking to his people. The Batman article will have that certain 'wiki' + 'copyright lawyer' feel to it. Has it got you excited too ? I bet it does, I sense we're all excited about this. Penyulap ☏ 07:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I emailed w:David Ferriero the other day about his feelings about changing laws to allow FOP in the USA. He seems to like WMF a lot. No response yet. I don't know if it is a big issue down there or no one really cares. If enough images are deleted from articles then some political pressure may happen. "But the Batmobile was here last week Ma! Honest! Why is it gone now Ma! This is 'Merica and the Batmobile is 'Merican, why did WMF delete it! WMF is 'Merican! Tell Daddy to vote against the WMF!!! Are you allowed to vote too, Ma?"--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Scale models

I would like some clarification on two deletion requests.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fiat 880 DT tractor.jpg - a scale model of a tractor.  Deleted as a derivative work.
• Commons:Deletion requests/Category:OO Scale - (not quite) scale models of trains.  Kept on the grounds that the subjects are ineligible for copyright.

The two cases here present the argument that scale models are ineligible for copyright on the grounds that they are just utilitarian works scaled down, and that they are eligible for copyright because they're not utilitatian themselves. Can we get some consistency here please? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The US copyright office will register copyrights for scale models, which is a pretty authoritative statement on the matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see USCO Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts, which lists "models" explicitly.

I note that I was on the "keep" side of the second DR cited above, which was in support of another editor who thought that singling out that category of models was silly -- all models should be carefully examined. That was three years ago and we are still keeping copyrighted models -- it's clearly time to take action on them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. See also the close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG. Rd232 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've written an essay on this topic: User:Elcobbola/Models. Comments at the OO Scale discussion were uninformed. Эlcobbola _talk 14:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks very good. We now have Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Models based on that, so really, we need to start cleaning out model categories to ensure content meets the new understanding. Rd232 (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Corgi toys seems like all UK ones that has broad FOP. Can we consider those on display in public toy stores and thus allowed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, UK FoP requires permanent installation. Эlcobbola _talk 21:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

en:File:Goumiers morocco.png

The above is a cartoon/drawing published in a French magazine in 1907. Anybody have any idea what its copyright status is in France so we can work out if/when it can be moved here? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto en:File:Fflmorocco.png and en:File:Senegalese troops en route to Morocco 1908.png. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably {{Anonymous-EU}}, though some Commons files of Le Petit Journal drawings do have known authorship. I'm not sure where that info comes from, since it doesn't seem to be on the page... Rd232 (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll see if the enwiki uploader can shed any more light on it and then perhaps move the images over here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-Any is a mess

Hi. I just noticed this template and I think it is a mess because the license terms have been changed and I doubt the license changes are valid for all the files using the template. Could someone please have a look so I can get a second opinion? See Template talk:MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-Any for more info. --MGA73 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

CC BY Film trailer

I found a film trailer on Youtube and its license is CC BY. So can i upload it to Commons? Tuankiet65 (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Link:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmzV9wYkizs
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9pw1sdwyYs

I would suspect not, I don't speak vietnamese but that youtube channel is licensing other Hollywood trailers (in vietnamese translation) under CC BY where they clearly don't own the copyright. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Vatican City

Do you know whether they have their own copyright legislation or do the apply Italia's one? Best regards --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 06:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's based on Italian law with some additional provisions: see "Commons:Copyright rules by territory#The Vatican state". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jacklee, I missed that. However, the text you mention does not seem to clarify too much. I'll explain: I'm referring to this file. No source is provided, so it's difficult to see whether it's in the PD or not (in particular, I'd like to know what Exclusive right on the use of the Pope’s image and voice for purposes other than religious, cultural and educational actually means, as the purposes in commons are not only religious, cultural or educational). However, assuming that it was an official picture published by the Holy See in the fifties or sixties, does the Italian law with regard to 'simple photographs' apply to such a work if it contradicts the above mentioned "exclusive right on the use of the Pope's image"? BTW, I don't think an official picture can be regarded as lacking artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality, but that's another issue. Best regards --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 09:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Those terms are not copyright, but rather personality rights. I would presume the 20-year simple photo thing applies to the Vatican (since they do apply Italian copyright law with very few additions) but I'm not sure studio portraits count as simple photos -- I seem to remember someone bringing up some case law on that. I don't think we need a source (if simple, PD status is based on date of publication) but rather it's the simple photo determination, for which we don't need a source. The speedy tag is not appropriate I don't think but a DR might be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carl, thank you for your explaination. Some comments on them:

• The speedy tag is not appropriate I don't think but a DR might be. I completely aggree. DR is what would be needed.
• From the text currently available in Commons:Copyright rules by territory#The Vatican state (which deals with copyright and not with personality rights) and reads Exclusive right on the use of the Pope’s image and voice for purposes other than religious, cultural and educational I can't infer that it refers to personality rights. That's the reason why I'm looking for the source of the Vatican decree. I mean, if the text refers, as you say, to personality rights, they should not be in the page devoted to copyright. Moreover, exclusive right on the use does not seem to be personality rights, but a pretty clear copyright statement (anyway, we need to clarify that).
• Finally, I do agree with your analysis of the picture not being a simple photograph. By definition, a study portrait cannot be a simple photo, as the photographer carefully arranges the position of the model, the lighting, the angle and so on. It can hardly be considered a casual picture.

My conclusion: we need to fix the section on copyright for the Vatican City, trying to clarify the constraints introduced by the Vatican decree (if any). If it doesn't introduce further restrictions, it should be clarified (or even deleted). On the other hand, I'll open a regular DR for the pictures (there are three with the same source). Best regards and thank you for your time --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 13:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

use of the Pope's image and voice is inherently not copyrightable. That is squarely in the domain of personality/publicity rights. The copyright owner of a photograph lies with the photographer and the Pope cannot claim any copyright over that, at least in any way remotely recognized by international copyright treaties. They can, however, assert personality/publicity rights, which it appears they are doing. It's possible that within the territory of the Vatican city, those publicity rights are much stronger (in regards to the Pope) than elsewhere, but nobody gets a copyright over their own face or voice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All pictures of toys need to be deleted.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fiat 880 DT tractor.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberprutser (talk • contribs) 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all (eg some toys will be too old), but also not just toys - see #Scale_models up the page. It does need a whole systematic review of potentially affected files, on the model of say Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. Rd232 (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We have Category:Toys and Category:Models. They probably have 1000s of images in them. It may be easiest just to have admin go through and delete the obvious ones. It would take years to go through DR discussions on all of them. If someone is adamant about keeping any they can request undeletion then take them straight to DR for consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Lumina - Revistă Populară a Românilor din Imperiul Otoman

Romanian Digital Library, DacoRomanica, hosts a number of 58 digitalised copies (PDF format) of the periodical Lumina - Revistă Populară a Românilor din Imperiul Otoman, ranging from 1903 to 1908. The periodical was published within the Ottoman Empire, in nowadays Bitola, FYROM.

My understanding is that, taking into account PD-Ottoman-Empire and Wikimedia Commons' official policy on PD-art and PD-scan, these files are to be considered under Public Domain. User:Fæ has recommended me, though, before starting the batch uploading of them, to ask about the matter on this page. An example that I have already uploaded is here--D'AroemenenZullenNiVergaan (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is public domain. The only questions that someone might raise to challenge that view are , I think:

1. Whether later publication in Romania puts PD in doubt.

   As this was much later, not the 30 days recommended in the template guide, I think this is irrelevant.

2. Whether as this was "in copyright when the Empire was dissolved", it "may be subject to copyright laws of successor countries".

   This I have not a clue on. It would be helpful if someone familiar with similar cases were to share their experience.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you verify whether the copyright formalities weren't fulfilled? It's probably easy to check whether there was a copyright notice, but what does a correct copyright notice look like? Is it the same thing as a correct copyright notice from the United States, or is it different in some way? Also, if the publication was from 1903-1908, then the contents wasn't PD-old-30 when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved. Also, if some of the authors were citizens of some other countries, such as Austria-Hungary, then you get a standard PD-old-70 for those works.

{{PD-Ottoman Empire}} doesn't tell where the works are in the public domain. Does it mean that the works are in the public domain in the United States, the successor states or some other countries? It seems that {{PD-Ottoman Empire}} doesn't apply in Turkey at least, and Turkey is a major part of the Ottoman Empire. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that {{PD-Ottoman Empire}} doesn't apply in Turkey at least, - how so? As far as I can see, it covers Ottoman authors who died before 1892, publishing in the Empire only, since their copyright would have expired before the Empire was dissolved. Successor countries may have extended copyright, but they're not likely to have applied that to works that already entered the public domain. Rd232 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

PD-NASA or not

Hi, I have an image that I would like to upload from a page hosted at NASA using data also collected by NASA - the images are here. They were created by Michael Purucker, whose webpage says that he is employed by SGT INC, although he has a NASA e-mail address. Can I upload images from that page under a {{PD-NASA}} license? Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing you've linked so far says yes. It would depend on the terms of his employer's contract with NASA when the images were made. Looks like he's pretty thoroughly integrated with NASA so may be worth an email or two. Dankarl (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Are the images as old as the 1997 date on the website? According to his CV, in 1997 he was working for USGS which would make them PD. Actually it does not say where he was in 1997. Dankarl (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In the late 1990s he was working at the Goddard Space Center, but for Raytheon (2000) and Hughes STX (1996) so I'm not sure he's ever worked directly for NASA. I'll send him an e-mail - thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

He's responded by saying that it is public domain material - do I need an OTRS ticket for this? Mikenorton (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Would probably save trouble down the road. Dankarl (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Mikenorton (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. This whole business of contractor images (and also images donated to the US Government) is only beginning to get the needed attention and the templates and guidance we have do not really reflect the issues. Dankarl (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

FOP-Mexico needs real legal expertise

Just FYI, as undeletions are performed based on the assumption that FOP-Mexico does not require permanent installation of the original artwork in public space, we do need a thorough legal expertise about this question. See Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#does FOP-Mexico really not require permanent installation?. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright review

Hi, Can someone please confirm if i've used the correct license for the following image: File:Bunge_Tanzania.jpg? AliFazal (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like some images from that site are subject to UK Crown Copyright with a free use disclaimer: "All photographs used in our bloggers' posts are their own work and subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise stated. You can re-use Crown copyright protected material free of charge in any format, but the material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source and credit the blogger." [3] But I'm not sure that this is the Open Government Licence v1.0. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Currencies which are subject to perpetual copyright

Sorry, but some currencies, such as the Cuban peso and the Irish pound, are subject to perpetual copyright. Are there any other currencies, which are subject to perpetual copyright? --84.61.169.81 19:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be recognized outside of Cuba. Where do you see the Irish pound is subject to perpetual copyright, out of curiosity? One thing we know of is that the UK claims perpetual Crown Copyright on the King James Bible but Commons does not recognize that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

w:File:MBSHLogo2009.jpg

Is this logo protected by copyright? The Great Wave off Kanagawa is {{PD-old-100-1923|1849}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes. USA origin and is rather intricate in design. --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize the wave was PD.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Really close for me. The question if the selection of the portion of the original wave print to use, in combination with the selection of the fonts and arrangement of the words, is enough to go over the threshold. I'm really not sure. I might lean to the cautionary side though as I'm not sure we have any really good comparables among the known OK images. But if it's copyrightable, I think it's barely over the line -- the Geek Squad logo (which has a couple different fonts) is not copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is borderline someone may wish to upload it to commons and tag it DR to settle it. It seems fine as fair use on en:wp where it is now. Our DR is rather backlogged so unless there is a good reason to move it here we could just leave it as is.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:1. Veľmajster OSLJ a SMOM.jpg

Unsure about the (c) status. Source is here. Any takers for a quick look? Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:++Gerard Tum, by Laurent Cars.jpg probably sheds some light. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't find it. Darn. :) Thanks Carl! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Paintings and publication

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adéle Weman (Ebba Masalin, 1932).jpg. How do you determine if a painting was published or not? Many paintings are sold to private collectors and then later end up at a museum. Exhibiting a painting at a museum constitutes publication if this was before 1978 and if photography was allowed. Including a painting in a catalogue is also publication. However, it is only publication if this was with the consent from the painter. Some copyright laws contain provisions saying that museums may exhibit paintings without permission from the painter, and this isn't publication, I suppose. I'm wondering if this means that a lot of the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} paintings in fact are {{PD-US-unpublished}}... --Stefan4 (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Publication for paintings is such an incredible headache... I wonder if we shouldn't just have some kind of template that says "we don't know when this was published. It was probably published between XXXX and YYYY, in which case it entered the public domain in ZZZZ. If it was published after AAAA, or never formally published, then it may still be in copyright. Use at your own risk." Rd232 (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that many copyright laws contain a provision which allows you to exhibit a painting without permission from the painter, for example section 20 in the Swedish copyright law, or section 109 in the US copyright law. Also, in some countries, you may include paintings in an exhibition catalogue without permission from the painter (for example under section 24 in the Swedish copyright law). If you exhibit a painting using section 20 of the Swedish copyright law, and publish a catalogue for the exhibition using section 24, then the painting is still unpublished according to the copyright law of the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing which makes publication for paintings such a headache!! And that's why so very frequently we end up assuming, implicitly or explicitly, that publication was soon after creation. That assumption will frequently be wrong, but documentation of it is generally extraordinarily hard to find, if it's even documented anywhere. Rd232 (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if this really is the best approach... An alternative approach could be to assume that most paintings usually are sold to private collectors and that museum exhibitions usually depend on provisions which allow you to exhibit works and that the museums haven't obtained permission from the painter. It would actually be more convenient if most paintings are "unpublished" since the US copyright rules for unpublished paintings are more similar to non-US rules for paintings, but I'm not sure how often paintings are unpublished. In a deletion request, someone mentioned this article for a completely different reason. This article states that the standard copyright term in the United States is life+70, but that is only the case if the painting either is unpublished or recent, so I was wondering if a lot of museums think that a lot of paintings are unpublished. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that case (en:Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) helps clarify this (see also en:First-sale_doctrine#Application_to_public_display_right). Commons:Publication does point towards your line of thinking though, with A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. at Commons:Publication#United_States. Rd232 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to the statement in that article where someone (possibly a copyright guy at a museum) claims that the standard copyright term is life+70 years. I'm trying to see what that person is basing the claim on. If museums think that most paintings are unpublished, then that is maybe what we also should do. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

So, if public display in an exhibition is not of itself an act of publishing, I guess we need proof of the early existence of derivatives like postcards, or images in papers and magazines. Not to mention the possibly different ideas of what constitutes publishing depending on the country of origin. That's in fact a headache-inducing subject. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

USA uses 95 years since publication, with publication meaning publication as defined by US law, so we don't need to look at the definition of publication in other countries.

Exhibiting a painting at a museum is publication if this was done with consent from the painter, but not if the museum depends on s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 109 or a similar provision in the copyright law of another country.

Exhibiting a painting at a museum is publication if the museum permits photography, but not if the museum doesn't permit photography.

Exhibiting a painting at a museum is publication if the museum is open to the general public, but not if the museum isn't open to the general public.

Exhibiting a painting at a museum is publication if the exhibition took place before 1978, but not if it took place after 1977.

If at least one of the statements above tells that it isn't publication, then it isn't publication. Problems:

• We usually don't know when or where a painting was exhibited.
• We usually don't know whether any random museum permitted photography back in the 1930s or 1940s.
• We usually don't know whether the museum had permission from the painter. This will probably mainly be the case if the painter still is the owner of the physical painting and borrows or sells his copy to the museum.

Summary: It's awfully hard to tell when or whether a painting has been published. In deletion requests, it has been fairly common to assume that a painting was published when it was made, although this probably very often is wrong. I was wondering if it might be more accurate to assume that paintings haven't been published at all. There should probably be a page somewhere which summarises all of these problems. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the best summary of publication as related to 2D artworks I ever run into (Thanks!). Please preserve it in some guideline or tutorial. The subject comes up often enough. --Jarekt (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think photography is necessary; I believe if they let someone stand there sketching the work (i.e., copying, old school), then it would be published. Which might open up a few more museums, but is still hard to check.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame there's no FoP for art in Finland, then we could just slap {{Not-free-US-FOP}} on this and forget all these dumb U.S. IP laws about publication and whatnot –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that Europeans feel this continued need to denigrate US law? European law can be horrible, too; I can copy any 1922 periodical I want under US law, but under life+70 law, you will likely have to omit some works by being by people who lived past 1943, and some authors you may never find even after wasting hours you could have been spending digitizing the work. We do forget about all these dump UK IP laws about photography and whatnot, and we skimp on their publication laws (25 years of protection from first publication, are we worrying about that on UK paintings?). Can we at least acknowledge that all IP laws can be dumb and stop denigrating any one country?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this was intended as sarcasm, the thread above this one suggests that we could magically make U.S. copyright law and all the weird considerations about publication disappear if that were the case. I don't like it. I'm also not a fan of one particular country or its legislation over another. I also started this DR, but that is a coincidence :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 01:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that paintings were published when they were made is one thing, but how do we handle things like United States copyright formalities? Relevant for two reasons:

• Non-US paintings with {{PD-1996}} must have been published without US copyright formalities or before a copyright treaty was signed with the United States.
• Paintings from the United States are really tricky. Basically, any pre-1989 painting might have been published without copyright formalities, and here we don't have {{PD-old-70}} which restricts us from uploading recent paintings either. For example, w:Sam Francis has lots of US paintings from the 1950s and 1960s which are claimed to be protected by copyright. How would I tell if these claims are correct or not? For what it is worth, some of them might be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Mexico copyright term

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico says that the Mexican copyright term was extended from 30 years pma (before 1982) to 100 years (since 2003) - and that these extensions were not retroactive. I have no reason to doubt that, but I spent some time trying to prove it and wasn't successful. I've also not been able to determine whether the "100 years after publication" term for government works was previously shorter as well and whether it was extended retroactively or not. Nor can I find any clarity on anonymous works. In short, if someone could clarify any of these issues, that would be great. Rd232 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See also w:Wikipedia talk:Non-U.S. copyrights#Mexico and w:User:Dcoetzee/Copyright law of Mexico. Mexican copyright rules are awfully messy. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've used those to clarify Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico a bit. It's still confusing though. Rd232 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone tell whether Mexican FOP allows for temporary display? My Spanish sux. If so we should get some bikers to steal the Batmobile, Academy Awards, Nobel prizes, WWE belts, etc. Take them to Mexico, takes pictures for us, then profit from the reward after returning them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:FOP#Mexico: there is no reference to display of the copyrighted object, only its visibility. The clause provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not adversely affected thereby would prevent the sort of shenanigans you're thinking of :) Rd232 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

FOP provisions also could not possibly help you with trademark violations, which are also in issue with real-life usages. There was very much a trademark component to that Batmobile lawsuit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment I tried to add information on the registration requirement, but I'm not sure if I added it to the right place. The registration requirement appears in the 1928 act, but when was that act enacted? The 1947 act was enacted in 1948...

Were there also copyright formalities before the 1928 act, or at least something which might put a work in the public domain for some reason? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I gave some links at the bottom of the aforementioned w:Wikipedia talk:Non-U.S. copyrights#Mexico discussion. In particular is this case, which ruled some movies PD in Mexico (and therefore the US since there was no URAA restorations) due to their lack of Mexican registration. If the 1982 law had been retroactive, then that lack of registration would have been moot, but it was not. The 1994 increase to 75 was definitely not retroactive. The increase to 100 is just as unclear as the 1982 going by the text -- but usually when you retroactively increase you have to give *some* leeway to existing usages, and there are usually sections of law which go over how to handle people legitimately using works that were PD before the increase -- and I don't see anything. I thought I have seen claims elsewhere that it was not retroactive, which makes the most sense looking at the text, but the law itself does not explicitly say one way or the other (just like 1982). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point: retroactivity implies a need for specific arrangements for works suddenly not PD any more; those provisions should surely be part of the main law, and lack of them is very strong (if not quite conclusive) evidence that retroactivity wasn't intended by the lawmakers. Rd232 (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-00721, Marokko, Fremdenlegion.jpg

Apparently published in 1920; photographer unknown. Released by the German Federal Archives as CC-By-SA. They don't know who the author is and it depicts the French Foreign Legion, so I'm sceptical that they would own this image. They're not claiming that it's an anonymous work, but that might be a reasonable assumption. Any help figuring out what to do with it would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The underlying photo is PD in the US (published before 1923) and in Europe only if it's reasonable to assume the author is anonymous (see {{Anonymous-EU}}) –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Institution" parameter mentions also the Aktuelle-Bilder-Centrale, a press agency run by a certain Georg Pahl (d. 1963). The federal archives seem to have acquired Pahl's estate which puts them into a position to release it. The original source page states that the photo may have been produced between 1920 and 1935, so it's even possible that Pahl himself was the photographer. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm just not looking in the right place, but how did you find out that the archives acquired Pahl's estate? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The article in the license wording

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious as a foreigner but it puzzles me for several years already. In the proposed CC-BY-SA wording for a web page (emphasis is mine): "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." Shouldn't it be instead "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." — as it is this particular type and language version from the whole set? --NeoLexx (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the license is not exclusive, other licenses for the same work can exist. Ruslik (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is actually a language question like I think it is: wikt:en:license. In sense 1, you can imagine there are lots of CC-BY-SA-3.0 licenses, one for each time it's used, so you can have a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License for a file. In sense 2, there is of course only one CC-BY-SA-3.0, the terms under which it's used, which is the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. OR someone just wasn't thinking when they wrote that :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for answers and yes, it is a pure language question. So sincerely for a native English speaker what line would be more naturally sounding at the bottom of the text released under CC-BY-SA-3.0 Unported — with "a", with "the" or either way doesn't really matter? --NeoLexx (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Either is fine. As above, it depends on what you think the word "license" means, but both statements end up meaning the same thing. For example, if you spend any time on Commons you will see "the" a lot more because it's on all of our CC templates –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has done a great deal of licensing, I would definitely say "a license". A license is a contract. Each CC-BY license is a different contract, because it has a different grantor. A clearer way of stating the situation is to say "This work is licensed under a license which is identical with the CC-BY.... found at ...." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a license is not a contract.[4][5] They can be related but different law doctrines come into play I believe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo remixed with CC-BY-SA

I have just uploaded File:Fotokagebillede til den danske Wikipedias 10-års jubilæum.jpg, which contains both the Wikipedia logo as well as some CC-BY-SA material. I am wondering how the Commons policy is regarding this work. It seems to be an "illegal" image, due to the non-CC Wikipedia logo and the CC-BY-SA components? — Fnielsen (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

{{FOP}} is not redundant to country specific FoP tags

But it looks like it should be. One could tag a file with e.g. {{FOP}} and {{FoP-UK}}; one is a warning template about copyright and the other is a rationale for a free image. (Sidenote: isn't green the wrong colour for a warning?)

Maybe the equivalent of {{FOP}} should be integrated into each FoP template (ones beginning with FoP-*), because it would always need to be stated in those cases –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Not-free-US-FOP

Just to point out that {{Not-free-US-FOP}} says depending on the outcome of community discussions and new case law, linking "community discussions" to the now-closed RFC Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law. I'm not sure what, if anything, we should do here. The tagging was supposed to be an interim measure to some extent, but nothing else has really been agreed. Note also my addition to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States noting this tagging status quo. I suppose warning people is better than nothing (though it's a warning that applies to so many FOP cases, maybe we should just transclude it in FOP templates...!). Rd232 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Are we to believe that an American tourist could go to Mexico with a copy of The Da Vinci Code, place it on a park bench, photograph every page, complile those pages into a PDF and then upload it here with {{FoP-Mexico}} and {{Not-free-US-FOP}}? This, of course, would be luncy -- lunacy allowed by this "license". It is a direct contradiction of lex loci protectionis and COM:PRP. I fail to see how any reasonable or responsible person with a genuine understanding of US jurisprudence and the spirit of the Commons would find this acceptable. Эlcobbola _talk 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Mexican FOP wouldn't allow that - it requires that normal commercialization of the work is not affected. Rd232 (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

And Disney doesn't license Mickey images? Or, to this example, what about just the first 30 pages? That fragment is not "normal commercialization". That would be kosher? Эlcobbola _talk 01:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, because the law is about affecting normal commercialization. At some point the fragment is small enough for it not to (in the spirit of Fair Use), but a chapter seems too much. Rd232 (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Even a chapter would be too large a portion for fair use but, if we grant it were FU for the sake of argument, Commons doesn’t allow fair use. You’re not seeing the forest for the trees. Instead of the book, how about this exact image but with the grey of a Mexican sidewalk instead of the white of a (presumably American) photostudio. A photo is 2D, the figurine is 3D – completely different commercialization prospects; would this be allowed? Do we really think any court in the US would deny Disney an injunction if a Commons user marketed a book with this on its cover? Even if we don’t buy the lex loci argument, how can the comments below be construed as anything but “substantial doubt”? (COM:PRP) Эlcobbola _talk 12:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we really think any court in the US - that's a different issue, as the US court might well apply US FOP standards anyway (perhaps especially if they didn't like the implications of using Mexican FOP...). The question is what is permissible in Mexico under Mexican law. Going on what the Federal Law says alone is tricky; there must be cases that would help illuminate how it is applied in practice. But as long as we don't have such cases, it basically comes down to how strictly to interpret "affecting" and "normal commercialization". Rd232 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Works on the Commons must be free in the US; what a US court would think is the question. Эlcobbola _talk 20:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is what I find most confusing about this whole discussion. Just because someone has taken a picture of something outside the U.S., that entirely obviates the object's copyright status in the U.S. and makes the picture free of restrictions there? What is the international agreement that allows this to happen? –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

@both Elcobbola and Moogsi, yes, what US law is is the question for {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. (I got a bit off-track with the discussion, maybe.) The problem is that it is not settled which freedom of panorama rules a US court will apply: it might be US ones, or it might be those of the country where the work was made, or of the country where the work was first published... (see Commons:FOP#Choice_of_law). The choice-of-law issue in international copyright is basically a bit of a mess. At one point I thought it was basically lex loci (Commons:lex loci protectionis), and there are certainly examples of that principle being applied, but it's not settled, certainly in US law, as far as we know. Until it is, we're in a grey area. Rd232 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, there are probably some subtleties I'm missing. The way I see it is, if you make a reproduction of a copyrighted artwork which is on display and redistribute it freely according to the FoP laws of whatever country, it is a specific exception which allows free use of the reproduction in the country with FoP. Unless a similar exception is present in U.S. law, then the underlying work of which the reproduction is derivative is protected by copyright in the U.S., just as it is in the other country, excepting the specific cases as specified by their FoP law. Why would the copyright status of the reproduction in another country have any bearing on the status of the original work in the U.S? –⁠moogsi (blah) 23:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the German case Hundertwasserentscheidung (first example in the Examples section at Commons:Lex loci protectionis) is exactly what you might expect (applying German FOP to a photo taken in Austria and sold in Germany). On the other hand, en:Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., a US case, suggests an alternative approach, looking at the "copy lawfully made abroad can be sold in the US" idea there (though it's not an FOP case and it would be easy to argue it's not relevant; but I've not seen a really relevant US case). Rd232 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... a couple of things stick out at me about that case. The copies were considered made in accordance with Wiley's right of reproduction as enshrined in U.S. law, and not dependant on or even in consideration of foreign legislation. Also, the first-sale doctrine as used by the defendant is dependant on Wiley's right of distribution of physical copies. The U.S. copyright office has stated "[t]he tangible nature of a copy is a defining element of the first-sale doctrine and critical to its rationale." It is doubtful that it applies at all to digital copies in the U.S. Anyway, enough wikilawyering for now, but it's enough to say I'm still not at all convinced –⁠moogsi (blah) 01:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There probably won't be anything to convince you :-) It is very, very possible that such photos could be considered infringing in the U.S. depending on their use. The question is how much will the foreign FoP law come into play, and I don't think there has been a U.S. test case. They would use foreign law to determine copyright ownership, and rights transfers, but they could easily consider the photo derivative in the U.S. Or, perhaps the foreign FoP status would affect the fair use determinations -- after all you are trying to balance the rights of the copyright holder of the photograph as well. Commons policy had long been to allow them given the uncertainty and given they were OK in the foreign country, but when faced with a DMCA request, the WMF did take down some photos. I think those included some of one particular sculpture which I seriously doubt was above the U.S. threshold of originality, but when faced with the request, it's often easiest to just comply, even if that one was almost certainly OK. The question is if that was enough to change Commons policy (should we ignore the threshold of originality portion of the law as well, since it's possible we could get DMCA challenges on some of those?), and it was unclear if we really should. If there was actually a court case which gave guidance, that would be much better grounds to change policy, but in reality we have the same uncertain situation as before. The template was created to document that uncertainty on those images which it would apply to (which is not necessarily the same images that have other FoP tags). It's not quite the same thing as Not-PD-US-URAA, which were 100% definitely not-free files kept in the slimmest-of-slim hopes that that existing law would be vacated. The case for that tag was way weaker than this one. But really deleting images using that FoP tag would represent a change in previous Commons policy, and I'm not sure there has been consensus to do that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"If there was actually a court case which gave guidance..." Don't you think Itar-Tass Russian News Agency V. Russian Kurier Inc., 153 F3d 82 (2nd cir. 1998) does? The interests of copyright properties are determined by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the properties. Эlcobbola _talk 18:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And which would that be? That case said that foreign (i.e. non U.S.) law would be used to determine ownership of rights, while local (U.S.) law would determine if it was infringement and whatever the punishment would be. The FoP situation though is a twist -- the copyright owner of the underlying work knowingly placed it (or allowed it to be placed) in a public place, generally permanently, so they should have known that the laws in that location mean that photographs of it there are outside their control, at least in that country. If the law in that country does not give the copyright owner of the underlying work the right to control such photographs, wouldn't that enter the equation of "ownership of rights"? Thus if that owner did not have the right to control the photograph per foreign law, they may not have standing to sue in the U.S., at least over the photograph. Or maybe a court would rule along the lines of that German case, where the limitation of rights existed only in Austria and not in Germany, where the alleged infringement actually occurred. The FoP situation injects another "significant relationship" into the equation which I don't think that court case had to consider (since it was about a straight copy of a work, no derivative issues involved) and it does cloud things, potentially. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Since the works at issue were created by Russian nationals and first published in Russia, Russian law is the appropriate source of law to determine issues of ownership of rights." In my above hypothetical, Mickey was created by a US national and first published in the US. Similarly, if the book from that hypothetical were marketed in the US, that would be the jurisdiction of the tort. The standing test of 17 U.S.C. § 501(b) might be a wrinkle, but what jurist would find that Disney is not the legal owner of exclusive right to the Mickey character? Эlcobbola _talk 18:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but the photograph was created by a foreign national and likely first published in a foreign nation. The court case would be over use of the photograph, which is a separate work. There are more rights involved in that situation, and the balance could easily be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The photograph is a derivative work. Disney's right to exclusive use of Mickey would not be dissolved. Эlcobbola _talk 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Except when the law says it is. Their rights only go so far as the law allows them. Their rights to control the photograph may have been limited by law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The primary purpose of a book is not to sit upon a park bench in the outdoors. It would get rained on and so forth, it's not meant for that. The purpose of a hot air balloon is to take to the sky, that's what it lives for, that's why when it sits in it's box in the shed and there is a crack in the wall that lets light in and it can see the sky it whispers 'I know we'll be together one day' but books and the UV radiation and rain, it's just not anything like a love affair. The monument in that park in Mexico you can take pictures of and release the pics for free. Putting your TV in the park and copying your DVD collection wouldn't be proper, but a picture of a drive-in movie theatre that unintentionally included the screen with a movie on it would be ok. Penyulap ☏ 02:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this was such a complicated issue, or that it was still up in the air. I've made 2 recent deletion nominations caused by this issue, both photos of paintings which are copyrighted in the U.S., but taken in countries that allow FoP (not linking them as I would like the discussion to focus in one place for now). To me the situation seems very clear-cut, as there is no PD rationale for the paintings (and therefore the photos) in the United States. Maybe I'm missing some subtlety here –⁠moogsi (blah) 01:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

One thing from that discussion which I absolutely support is petitioning the WMF to obtain some advice from lawyers on more complicated IP issues like this. We need fewer opinions on what the case may be clouding the discussion. We can't really decide how to act on this when we have nothing more than laypersons' opinions. The course of action will be clear when we know (even just a little bit) what we're talking about –⁠moogsi (blah) 01:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the rules change from time to time and classes of images get deleted or allowed from time to time, and while there are gaps and so forth, if it is here with no reason found that it shouldn't be, then I'd suggest continuing to observe that the world isn't exploding and that everything is ok. You know, until a good reason comes up. Penyulap ☏ 02:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I find your concern touching; I assure you I'm not losing any sleep over this :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 09:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd misremembered how settled this was as well. I think the WMF response noted under Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law strongly suggests they'd lean to endorsing lex loci (i.e. applying US FOP rules to foreign works when litigated under US jurisdiction). That conclusion for me is fairly strong, but the consequences are extremely wide-ranging, which given the legal uncertainty, makes it difficult to argue for mass deletion. I think at the moment this is in the sort of grey area the URAA works were before the Supreme Court decided, and mass tagging with the template is the best we can do until the legal situation becomes clearer. Rd232 (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about transcluding {{Not-free-US-FOP}} to the non-US FOP templates. Things like {{FoP-Sweden}} and {{FoP-UK}} are also used for buildings, which are clearly covered by {{FoP-US}} and/or {{PD-US-architecture}}. Also, as the US uses a very different copyright term, a statue may be in the public domain in the US but not in the country in which it is erected. But maybe it's better with too many warnings than too few warnings and to add a USA template as an extra parameter for images which are unquestionably OK in the US, for example {{FoP-Sweden|PD-US-architecture}} which would transclude {{PD-US-architecture}} instead of the warning template. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The template is quite big, so actual transclusion would be a bit much. But we could make FoP templates include a warning line about US FOP which points to the template (or to the section in COM:FOP), and give the template a new parameter to suppress the warning or replace the warning with a US FOP template. It does complexify things though, and make me think again of my dream to have something like {{COML compliance}} built in COM:LUA. Rd232 (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Stefan4. For example, I have used {{FoP-Switzerland}} for File:Solothurn touringhaus.jpg which depicts a building built in 1933 in Switzerland by an architect who died in 1957. So, the building is protected by copyright in Switzerland, but depicting it is allowed according to Swiss FoP. However, it's also perfectly fine in the U.S. (where FoP would apply for newer buildings, and for buildings of this age, {{PD-US-architecture}} would be applicable). - We could of course add {{FoP-US}} and/or {{PD-US-architecture}} to the description pages of buildings outside the U.S., too, in addition to the applicable local FoP template, but... it does seem a bit over the top. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I believe this will take more or less the same path that {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}: few contributors will make extra effort to enforce this, as even if is the correct legal interpretation, it just sounds too far-fetched/dumb © law, and we all have already enough on our plates and prefer to focus on other things first. :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Commons:Choice of law might be developed a bit with any clarifications we can come up with. COM:LEX has more, but is not the right place to cover the general choice-of-law problem. Rd232 (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that image tags should be used to explain whether images can be used anywhere in the world and not just whether they can be used in the United States and the source country. I suggest that we add two parameters to each FOP template:
  • Death year: Adds {{PD-old-auto}} below the FOP template. For example, if File:Stockholms stadshus september 2011.jpg gets {{1945}}, then you will know that the photo is free in Morocco (50 years p.m.a.) but not in France (70 years p.m.a.).
  • USA licence: {{PD-US-architecture}}, {{FoP-US}}, {{PD-1923}} or any other applicable tag. If the parameter isn't used, and if the template covers things which are not buildings, then automatically transclude {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Problematic recent mass upload of Flickr user Catia's entire (?) collection

User:Viscontino just lately set a bot to upload dozens of photos from Flickr user Catia's account. Problem is, Catia had apparently only accidentally set a free licence to their pictures -- the descriptions of multiple hundreds of their photos say (in Italian) "please do not use [this image] without my permission". It's clear Catia didn't intend the pics to be freely usable, and if I'm not mistaken we here at Commons have a habit of not uploading such files out of courtesy. Right?

What to do with the uploads? Here is a string search, it finds nearly 400 files. Is listing each file individually for a RfD necessary? If not, how to go about RfDing all the files by the author? --Pitke (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A single RfD would be enough. And yes, I think the explicit text does basically override the license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does it override the license? She couldn't change all those picture descriptions before setting Creative Commons license. And also, I read in a discussion that everybody can release the same work under different licenses with no problems. --Viscontino (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

An author is free to license their works however they want -- they could certainly take the CC-BY text and modify it to their liking. We would not accept such modified licenses here depending on what those modifications are, but in the end the modified version is the only license the author gave. In this case there are a couple of contradictory statements, and we would always go more with the text that the author actually wrote rather than just included by reference (particularly when it appears there may be language barrier issues which may have contributed to a misunderstanding). The user specifically requested permission to re-use, and I think that makes them non-free, despite the CC license being specified. You (or anyone else) is certainly free to ask the author for a clarification, or ask permission to truly release some or all under a free license. But the user would have to understand ahead of time they would be releasing them for *anyone* to use, not just Wikipedia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Best to ask the owner of the copyright. If that can't be done, then their words are best, if the website text is in English, but the user/uploader/owner doesn't speak English, then their text would be a more important indicator of the status of the images. But again, ask the owner if you can log into the other site and message them. Penyulap ☏ 09:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I would lean toward a courtesy delete of all the files. Flickr may not translate well to Italian so she may have erred. They may be all of her best works and we may have her in tears if she can't make anymore income from them because of us. If anyone tags them with a DR then they should link the DR to here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

She knew what she was doing, here some discussions (in Italian) where she asked for some help about uploading and license change:

• Commons:Bar_italiano/Archivio/Archivio22#Foto_di_Simpio96
• Commons:Bar_italiano/Archivio/Archivio22#Ho_cambiato_la_licenza.....

--Viscontino (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I just read the Google translations and it does seem she was confused and pushed to change her Flickr licenses. She was very adamant about not wanting any derivative works as well as wanting to be notified for any use of her images. She also mentions that some were previously published so she would need to go through OTRS. She does state at the end that she would like them all deleted from commmons because she was confused about the licenses and couldn't read English. We should delete them out of courtesy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

RfD

Please continue discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/Simpio96_Flickr_stream --Pitke (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2009-0617-statue-Wakefield.jpg

Is this really the correct closure? I thought that the rule was that post-1977 statues require distribution of 3D copies in order to count as published and that 2D copies don't count. For example, a 2D copy doesn't show all aspects of the work. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't why James thinks that it would get an unlimited copyright if it wasn't published; post-1977 works (by living authors, not works for hire) get life+70, published or unpublished. I don't know whether 3D is required for publishing, and I don't believe that a missing copyright notice on one unpublished copy would matter if there was one on published copies. In 1988, the rules about having copyright notices weren't nearly as strict, and no one checked to see if notice was filed with the Copyright Office to repair a defective copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) For works published after 1978, the (limited) term is 70pma -- the term is not based on publication. It is correct that it would be considered published at least as much as published derivative works showed. But even if that means that 1988 was the publication year, I'm not sure that that means that the statue's copy itself could be considered published without notice -- subsequent photos may cause it to essentially be considered published but it would have been unpublished when the statue was put in place, so no distribution without notice. However... it sounds like the author donated the statues to the towns. The law says: “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. The donation could be considered distribution to the public by other transfer of ownership. Or maybe not, since the offer was not really open to anyone. Or maybe it was, since it was being donated to a public body. The original is a "copy" per the definition in law, but I guess the hangup could be "copies". It is an odd situation. As noted on the Commons guidance page, This definition of publication requires more than displaying a work to the public: it requires that individuals gain a possessory interest in a tangible copy of the work as a “transfer of ownership.”. But that transfer of ownership may have occurred. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"To the public" is a distribution to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the contents. Plural matters; "'Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work [...]" is not "'Publication' is the distribution of a work [...]". Is this sculpture unique, or one of many identical to it? Эlcobbola _talk 00:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

His sculptures are apparently quite unique. The towns he donated to are presumably under no such disclosure restriction. The plural can matter but it has to be at least possible for singular work to become published -- if he offered it up for sale there would be no doubt as to whether it was published. It's just that the public display cannot do it; it needs to be based on some other action. I don't think giving it to a friend would constitute publication, but it was distributed to the town for purposes of public display. It is a fuzzy area of the new definition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, but aren't most sculptures sold by the sculptor to the owner of a park or a similar premise? Wouldn't this mean that most post-1977 sculptures in fact are published? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"it has to be at least possible for singular work to become published" Do you have cites for this contention related to works with a post-1976 Act genesis? Эlcobbola _talk 00:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any cites that it is impossible? :-) It is nonsensical to presume that Congress made a law where a monopoly was granted, often limited based on dates of publication, but then made it impossible for that work to ever become published. Works can remain unpublished, but I find it hard to believe that single copies cannot be published under any circumstances. There is a lot of discussion on the nature of publication in this paper; it does give a few cites of cases where sale of single items did constitute publication though most seem to refer to pre-1978 actions. While the 1978 definition of publication definitely excluded public display as a reason for publication itself, the definition generally followed previous case law (and the Nimmer definition) and does not absolutely preclude other forms of publication. One cite is this case, another this one (The number of persons receiving copies is not determinative; a general publication may be found when only one copy of the work reaches a member of the general public because general publication depends on the author making the work available to those interested and not on the number of persons who actually express an interest). It is a really complicated situation, to be sure, and usually (in common law) judges will try to use common sense in the absence of precedent, and the particular facts of each case may alter the determination. Judges will tend to require stronger indications of publication in order to divest someone of their copyright (and lesser proof if a finding of publication would help the author, from the sounds of it). Giving a copy to a friend is not really the same thing as giving it to the town (with the associated expectation of public display); the latter would be a much stronger determination. On the other hand, it was not a sale exactly, which would be stronger still -- the author was not directly profiting. I'm not aware of any precedent where a judge rules that multiple copies are always required -- just that it becomes more clear in that case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I misread you, but sarcasm does not transfer well through text. You made an affirmative statement, so I asked you to cite it. I did not say you were necessarily incorrect – a state desiring cites to the contrary. It is a logical fallacy to prove a negative. 17 U.S.C. § 101 uses the plural. Indeed, other parts of the code support the notion of a distinction between the original work and copies thereof (e.g. an exclusive right per 17 USC § 106 is to “reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords.”) The number of persons receiving copies is not determinative presupposes at least one copy. Perhaps the question I should have asked is why you believe the original work equivalent to a copy. This position is contradicted by the code (see the example above) and by case law. "[A] copy is that which comes so near to the original as to give every person seeing it the idea created by the original." (White-Smith Music Co. v. Apollo Co.) This was adopted by the 1909 Act and remains today (1 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.03(B); favorably cited in Kamar International Inc v. Russ Berrie and Co, just to mention a case sitting in front of me) The cases in the Cotter paper seem to speak to the effect of "sale of a single copy" rather than sale of a single, original work of which no copies have been produced. Which cases speak to the latter? (I’m not necessarily saying none do, just that I’ve missed them.) Эlcobbola _talk 14:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does The number of persons receiving copies is not determinative require at least one copy? The vast majority of all documents made by the Swedish government are public and you can ask to get a copy of them by contacting the relevant authority. However, in most cases, the documents are completely uninteresting. For example, usually no one is interested in internal notices about internal matters at some government agency, so usually no one will ask for a copy of those documents. However, I would still have assumed that those documents are published according to the US definition, since copies have been offered. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

@Stefan4, I was speaking in context and was thus not precise enough with my wording. You're correct that, like Sweden, mere offering is generally sufficient in the US. Эlcobbola _talk 21:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

From 17 USC 101: “Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed. (bolding mine) The term copies includes the original per the definition in law :-) That definition also shows why a physical copy is needed -- something must be "fixed" in a physical medium to be a copy in the first place (and it's not really copyrighted yet if it's not). I wasn't being sarcastic in my reply -- I did provide some cites, which was reasonable to ask for. But you also made some affirmative statements without cites ;-) In general though the copyright law (when it comes to terms) treats all works equally; if they intended a class of works to never be publishable (and therefore not eligible for certain term limits) they probably would have spelled it out. Single copies had been ruled published plenty of times; the new law did make sure to remove public display as a way that could happen going forward but they did not remove *all* possibilities. The 1976 definition otherwise was pretty close to Nimmer's old definition, which was based on the case law through the years, so it's reasonable to assume that a lot of old case law is still fairly valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't mean that affirmative statements require cites when made -- just that, if cites are subsequently asked for, it isn't terribly helpful to request the logically impossible converse. :) If we accept that the plural is erroneous and that even transfer of a sole, original work is publication, then numerous bizarre things happen. As "to the public" is a distribution "to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the contents," inheritance would be equivalent to forced publication. If the creator of an unambiguously unpublished work passed away and a relative inherited the same, how would that not be publication? Similarly, that creator, in life, would be prohibited from rental, lease, or lending of that work lest it become published. This seems a fundamentally unfair and unintended imposition of restrictions; if one accepts that an underlying motivator of US jurisprudence is the avoidance of chaos, I don’t see acceptance of a non-plural interpretation. Indeed, implicit in Brown v. Tabb is the existence of multiple copies (“Brown retained possession of the master multi-track tape. He delivered to Don Jacobs Oldsmobile a reel-to-reel tape of the jingle.”) A finding that "a general publication may be found when only one copy of the work reaches a member of the general public" seems to presuppose that the copy is not the original given the preceding findings of fact. Эlcobbola _talk 21:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that "to the public" means that anyone should be offered to buy the work. For example, if you make a painting and sell it at an auction, and anyone is allowed to bid on it, then it's publication, but if you knock on your neighbour's door and asks if the neighbour wishes to buy the painting, then it is not publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm invoking the definition provided by the US Copyright Office (itself citing the legislative reports underlying the 1976 Act). Do have a cite for your definition? Эlcobbola _talk 21:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Inheritance is not distribution -- that implies a conscious act by the copyright owner. Same goes if a sculptor had five private copies of an unpublished sculpture and died -- they still aren't published even though all copies go to heirs. A further quote from the House report if it helps: Under the definition in section 101, a work is “published” if one or more copies or phonorecords embodying it are distributed to the public—that is, generally to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of its contents—without regard to the manner in which the copies or phonorecords changed hands. The definition clears up the question of whether the sale of phonorecords constitutes publication, and it also makes plain that any form or dissemination in which a material object does not change hands—performances or displays on television, for example—is not a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work. On the other hand, the definition also makes clear that, when copies or phonorecords are offered to a group of wholesalers, broadcasters, motion picture theaters, etc., publication takes place if the purpose is “further distribution, public performance, or public display.” Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is inheritance not a distribution? Where is distribution so defined, and how is bequeathment not a conscious act? [W]ithout regard to the manner in which the copies or phonorecords changed hands [...]' What part of that quote addresses my previous comments? Эlcobbola _talk 00:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Distribution" is not defined I guess -- which generally means the common definition of the term would apply (as would common sense). Inheritance is often dealt with elsewhere in the law -- that is not normal distribution by any stretch of the imagination. One of the major rights of a copyright owner is the right of first publication -- that is what is really being preserved, so that that moment is under the control of the rightsholder. Inheritance merely transfers that right -- it is not a distribution of copies (indeed, no physical copy need be involved with inheritance, but it does with distribution). Incidentally, the House Report also makes clear a single copy can be published -- a work is “published” if one or more copies or phonorecords embodying it are distributed to the public. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Inheritance is a form of distribution. That the specifics are another title isn't relevant. Title 17 only seems to care that the distribution occurs, and indeed "without regard to the manner in which the copies or phonorecords changed hands". That inheritance would essentially violate the right of first publication only further supports my point. Эlcobbola _talk 01:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No -- note that distribution requires actual copies, which are "material objects" per the definition. Tangible copies must be actually distributed. Transfer of copyright does not require material objects. In short, distribution is the transfer of ownership of the physical copies (which implies nothing about the copyright itself); transfer of copyright is a completely separate concept. Selling copies of books is distribution but not copyright transfer; inheritance is copyright transfer regardless of physical copies. If the right of first publication still exists (i.e. the work has not been published), then that right is also transferred. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the distinction; you brought up the right of first publication. The transfer of physical property is what we're talking about. Publication is the distribution of (physcial) copies. Inheritance is the distribution of (physcial) copies. Thus inheritance publishes the work. Эlcobbola _talk 02:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Publication is the distribution of material copies to the general public. Inheritance may not involve the transfer of any physical copies at all -- it is a transfer of rights (and possibly other property). It is not an act done by the copyright owner -- the copyright owner themselves changes. It might constitute publication if the will left a work "to the people" -- but otherwise transfers to family and friends is not really "the public" -- certainly not the general public -- and would probably not be publication. The language of the House Report is not law text -- it's read with a more explanatory nature, with common sense being applied. Anyways, that same report makes crystal clear that transfer of a single copy can be publication, depending on the circumstances. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Where is the word "general" in "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication"? Inheritance can involve the transfer of property rights, which is the scenario I'm suggesting. Friends and family can be "persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the contents" just as easily as a stranger. Indeed, the report is not law. Where is case law that genuinely supports the singular? Brown v. Tabb does not. Эlcobbola _talk 03:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You used it yourself in a quote earlier -- it is implied by "to the public". The House Report's version is work is “published” if one or more copies or phonorecords embodying it are distributed to the public—that is, generally to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of its contents. That is the source text used by the Copyright Office publication. The term in the law is basically defining what was "general publication" in previous case law. The House Report also used the word. Friends and family could be under no restrictions, but those are the cases where it's much more likely to be implicit restrictions. The House Report basically shows Congress' intent -- and the intent was pretty clear, as they spelled it out, that publication could involve a single copy. As for the Cotter paper, look at the note at the bottom of page 7 -- “Copies,” by the way, are defined as “material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” Id. § 101. Moreover, “the term ‘copies’ includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.” Id. Thus, under U.S. copyright law, there are, literally, no originals, only copies (or phonorecords). U.S. law does not distinguish the original from any other copy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Generally" refers common circumstance; it is not the same as in "general public." The definition uses merely "the public," whose definition could include friends and family. Of course they could be under no restrictions, which is precisely the circumstance I'm talking about. If the original work is a (singular) copy, fine, but the plural is still used (original + 1). Let's approach this from another angle: if a singular work is published by transfer of ownership to the public, in what circumstance would this sculpture be unpublished? The donation could be considered distribution to the public by other transfer of ownership. Or maybe not, since the offer was not really open to anyone. Where is the "offer was not really open to anyone" requirement coming from? Эlcobbola _talk 16:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That is the typical meaning of "to the public" -- the person who gets the copy was not chosen by or known to the author in advance. When you offer something for sale, that is often the moment of publication -- the offer is open to anyone who meets a price, i.e. in theory anyone could have had access to the work if they chose. Giving something to a friend may not count; it was never really offered to the public at large. The gift to the town was pre-arranged I guess, but wasn't really open to just anyone. A private, pre-arranged sale might not even be publication (though that may have needed to have at least implicit restrictions on further distribution). Given that this statue was given to a public government with the expectation of public display though, I'd say I'd lean (fairly strongly) towards it being published. But as the Cotter paper says, when it comes to someone losing their copyright, courts will try harder to find reasons to determine it was not published (e.g. Twin Books v Disney). If it was a situation where the author would have been helped had it been considered published, courts would have a much lower bar. In other words, a similar situation could be ruled either way depending on how it helps the copyright owner, if there is enough gray area. For Commons, we are typically talking about someone being divested of their copyright, so we should need a relatively strong indication of publication before we start encouraging others to copy such works. While it's possible the distribution of a single copy to a single predetermined recipient could be deemed publication given the letter of the law, courts would probably find common-law ways to say it was not, if the result is a lost copyright. It's rarely black and white ;-) If you go to the Cotter paper, start at the bottom of page 63, where this specific situation is discussed through page 67 (including a bunch of the footnotes). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

TOO or no notice

Is File:New York Rangers.svg public domain either because it is below TOO or because it was published without notice? Do logos published before 1977 need proper copyright notice?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Could be both :-) Yes, any works published before 1978 needed to have a copyright notice on them, so if you wanted to keep copyright on a logo, you would need to include a notice on every work where they were published, including all advertisements in newspapers, etc. The odds for PD-US-no_notice are extremely high, as they would be with most logos from that era (the Rangers have used basically that design, with just changes in shield design, since the 1920s -- and it has been virtually identical since the 1940s[6]). And it may well be below the TOO -- the shield is a pretty generic shape to begin with; not sure they would get a copyright on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how it worked in the United States a long time ago, but in modern times, sports clubs in my country usually produce a lot of clothes for their fans containing the club's logo without a copyright notice, and logos are often seen on flags without copyright notices during sports events outside the location where the event takes place. If this also was the case in the United States a long time ago, then I'd assume that most pre-1978 sport logos satisfy {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we tag it PD no-notice as well as PD simple graphics then? I put it up for DR as soon as I uploaded it and I see that it had gone through a very tiny DR before. Does this mean we can host most pre-1978 sports logos on commons then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Most pre-1978 US logos should satisfy {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but it may be hard to prove this. Try to find advertisements without copyright notices. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we could get funding from the WMF to find something on Ebay that was printed in 1977 with hockey, football, and baseball logos all included. I am in Canada so any sports memorbilia here isn't guaranteed to be published in the US as well. Otherwise I could just look in a collector store. Should we ask at the en:wp sports projects to see if any have stuff kicking around or want to look in stores? I also just thought that the 1953 image of Marilyn Monroe first appeared in a calendar in 1949. I may try and track one of those down as well to see if it was copyrighted. If not then that image would be PD.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at the WMF Grants Program. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I just read it over. It seems the legal rights holders were Western Lithograph Company for the famous Marilyn photo according the the How It Works source below. I will contact local antique dealers and see if they can source and price a version. It would be a good thing if they bought it themselves as an investment and just authenticated the fact that it is PD for us. If not then I need to seek other support from the community to fund it. If we offer to re-sell it and give the money back then that may help.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You may also wish to try the w:Google News Archive. It contains digitalisations of lots of US newspapers. Advertisements had to have a separate copyright notice, so if you find an advertisement for a company without copyright notice, then that advertisement should be in the public domain, including any logos contained in the advertisement. This is useful for all US logos, not just sports logos. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think they did that at en:wp for the Yellow Pages logo that was up for DR.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for check: File:Carlos_Arredondo_holding_a_blood_soaked_American_flag,_Boston_Marathon_April_2013.jpg

Hi,

I am not an admin on Wikimedia Commons. Could someone please have a look at this file and tell me how likely it is that this is actually uploaded by the photographer in a lower res version when at the same time a high res image is avaiable at getty images (http: // goo .gl/Y6yXq image comparison]). Thank you for your assistance. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Image deleted as copyvio by me. Reasons:

• Per http://commonamericanjournal.com/terrorism-at-todays-boston-marathon/ : "(Photo by Darren McCollester/Getty Images)"
• No metadata/EXIF data
• Another upload of this user was deleted as copyvio. Raymond 14:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright not renewed on NYTimes?

I thought the New York Times had renewed its copyright. Apparently some other editors claim that this isn't true, and that NYTimes articles from 1937 may be acceptable as PD_US_NOT_RENEWED: File:Flier says lawyer sent him to Spain.jpg. Any opinions? If true, it would change a lot of copyright investigations, as these are now routinely treated as copyrighted. If not true, perhaps a check whether there are more similar ones is needed. Fram (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• This page says that at least some issues from 1 April 1928 and on were renewed. I tried checking the copyright renewals from 1965[7] but the page is down for temporary maintenance. Maybe we should host a copy of those copyright records on Commons too. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The archive page is up again (hooray) and shows lots of NYT renewals in 1964 (incl. 1936 and Jan. of 1937 for some reason). The listing continues in 1965 with the February 1937 entries. From the sheer number of entries i'd guess it's a complete listing of all issues per year. GermanJoe (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Nominated for deletion. Some works were renewed during the 27th year instead of the 28th year. Not sure why, but it is always necessary to check both volumes. File nominated for deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Old paintings

I want to upload an old (1877) painting, by a painter who died in 1923. I thought I knew which tag to use, PD-Art, but that tag now says another tag stating why the painting is public domain in the US must be used. All the US PD tags seem to be based around the concept of "published", but what does "published" mean with regard to a painting? Gatoclass (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a very tricky question, see the discussion on this subject further up this page. For an 1877 painting, probably a lot of people here will just assume that it was published prior to 1923. In this case, you could use {{PD-art-auto-1923}} with the author's death year, but of course... first publication could have occured much later... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I see I'm not the only one who is confused by this :) In regard to this particular painting at least, I have since realized that a couple of contemporary etchings of the painting exist, for example, in Harper's, so the painting must have been on display somewhere at the time for other artists to copy it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright law support for UK GLAMs ?

Users who are interested in GLAM work, especially in the UK, might like to look at a suggestion I have posted on the WMUK website. Feedback welcome either here or there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Famous photo is actually PD?

Marilyn Monroe calendar. It is the same photo that was in Playboy in 1953 but just has the gown painted on. The Ebay images don't show copyright. Anyone want to bid and confirm? You would be Wikimedia famous!--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Quote from Ebay: "Mr. Kelly is best known for his iconic 1949 nude photographs of Marilyn Monroe, one of which was distributed widely as calendar art & was featured in the inaugural issue of Playboy magazine in 1953."--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I just traded emails with a collector. She has both of the famous calendars and might check them for copyright marks. Dropbox image It looks like they are in frames. Should I have her take them out and photograph all parts for me to upload as proof? I can just overwrite like we do with press photos.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marilyn Monroe Playboy centerfold 1953.jpg Move discussion to deletion review?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 1--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding presumed USFWS photo

This blog page includes a photo (first photo on the page) labelled "Aleutian Tern. (photo Nick Hajdukovich/USFWS)." If the attribution is correct, it should be uploadable here as PD-USGov-FWS. But there's no definitive statement of such, and I can't find the photo on the US FWS website. Is it safe to upload the photo here? - MPF (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A quick search established that Nick Hajdukovich is a Field Technician for USFWS, a student at UA Fairbanks, and an active and respected birder. I did not turn up an email address but there is a lot on the web to look at or you could go through USFWS to ask him whether this was an official or a personal photo.Dankarl (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Found his Flickr page and asked him via that (no reply yet though). - MPF (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

God's Work

"Open source software is proprietary as well" --SAP & Russell McOrmond
Though I don't agree with half the IP laws, I do agree with SAP & Russell McOrmond's Interpretation of the laws, because...
Once a work is owned by a person, it will always be owned by that person. Under the law, Accessibility can change, but Ownership/Foundership/Sponsorship/Authorship will not.

• If it was owned (by a Person), it is proprietary.
• If is was authored, it is owned by the author.
• If it was designed, it is owned by the artist.
• If it was photographed, it is owned by the photographer.
• If it was filmed, it is owned by the film director/producer.
• Also, if it was sponsored, it is owned by the sponsor/producer, by courtesy of related rights

So, if it was sponsored/directed by God, it is God's Work as per law, and anything owned by Extra-Legal entity is NOT Proprietary.

That is why I want to create a License named "God's Work":
Content under this license will be Copyrighted/Trademarked to God, and therefore not Proprietary.

1. Now the question I want to ask is, as Wikimedia users, what do you all think ?
2. Can this License be considered a valid license in Wikimedia Commons ?
3. Can this License be considered a valid license in other Wikimedia sites, such as WikiBooks, WikiSource, etc. ?

Thank you for taking your time --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

God isn't a person, they cannot hold copyright. Even if they could, Jesus died 2000 years ago and so even by the most restrictive laws any works by god are out of copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I'll pass on the silent asumption that you use a Judeo-Christian framework, which could be debated, but in any case God is eternal.

But the point is that as God is eternal, and if He can copyright His work, then His work is protected by copyright until forever+70 years. But that is evil. However, God is good. Therefore, the premices are false and God cannot copyright His work. QED. Rama (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But remember "yat te rūpaṃ kalyāṇatamaṃ tat te paśyāmi yo 'sāv so 'ham asmi" (We are One in Reality) -Isha Upanishad, verse:16; & "The Kingdom of God Is Within You !" - Luke 17:21, Bible --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: the contradiction with the omnipotence of God is left to the reader as an excercice. Rama (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

People are able to stop owning something they've created. On Commons you will find these works usually tagged with {{PD-self}} or {{CC-zero}}. These declarations do lead to the work being "owned" by no-one for all purposes –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And this template was already created, discussed, and deleted (discussion here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Gods_Work). Béria Lima ^msg 17:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

PD/CC0 works have been re-Copyrighted, legally --PD re-Copyright law reference 1, PD re-Copyright law reference 2 --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of your references are referring to the the Supreme Court's upholding of the constitutionality of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. These works were PD in the United States because of their age. By what process do you imagine that a work declared to be PD by its author could be re-copyrighted? I'm not saying it's impossible; all such declarations are made within the extent of the law: any legal restrictions will always apply, no matter what you decide to declare, or how you declare it. Unless you believe invoking God puts you outside Earthly jurisdiction, in which case I wish you luck –⁠moogsi (blah) 19:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This new license has no sense because rationale for having it is flawed:

• Original poster wrote: Under the law, Accessibility can change, but Ownership/Foundership/Sponsorship/Authorship will not. Not true. Authorship cease 70 years after author's death in most countries of the world, somewhere sooner.
• PD (public domain) works ARE public in broadest meaning of the word. Re-Copyrighting of PD in US is evidently possible (as this reference show, copy/paste of URL from above), but such process is possible only when in US some work is already in PD, in rest of the world isn't and US have to conform to international conventions it's legal bodies (e.g. Congress) have signed/ratified. That means that if something is in PD everywhere, there is no international convention (actually there is nothing) which could move Supreme Court to re-copyright it in US.

That been said, there is possibility, however tiny, that judicial systems all over the world change rules, lengthen current 70 years rule to 80 or 100 or whichever number, also they could invalidate it totally, meaning lengthen validity of authorship rights to eternity. They could even remove PD or GFDL or CC from being. In such case all Wikimedia projects should re-license its content to something else. And in such case God's work licence would be valid idea. But such possibility is so tiny that this whole line of thinking is just for fun, to show improbability or ridiculousness of it. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"For My ways are not your ways". Gods ways are perfect and eternal. They include "the falling of a sparrow". But they do not include copyright provision. Therefore they should be honored and we should surely not "bear false witness" to the views of the deity on the question. When it comes to works assumed to be God's, we should not assert a human creation (copyright) on the works of the Creator. Moreover "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God". Copyrighting the Word would therefore be tantamount to attempting to copyright God. We might also need to discover who or what holds the copyright over God, and whether a trademark application was filed. This is evidently a question we should say "Get thee behind me, Satan". It is indeed a Miracle that these works are free of copyright. Accept it.

So that's the traditional Western God (Deus Deitus Occidentia). Now, what about Allah, Krishna and the Reverend Moon. Can we adjourn theirs for a week or so to wash out the brimstone from our clothing? Does that stuff need biological washing powders? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for some guidance. I've read through the page listing the various PD-art licences, but feel like I've just walked through a minefield. I see that this image was deleted, have read the deletion discussion, and would like to know if it would be permissible to upload a copy of it scanned from the printed reduced-size facsimile version published by Chaix in Les maîtres de l'affiche in 1899, of which I own a copy? Does it matter that it is not the original work (which is lost), but a copy or perhaps second-generation copy thereof?

I'd also like to upload other scans from 19th-century prints of works by these artists if that is allowable. My questions are: does it matter whether the images were published in a book or magazine? What is the cut-off date after which works by Pryde and Nicholson (who died in 1941 and 1949 respectively) cannot be considered free? Can scans of their work from the internet (for which clearly there is no guarantee that they are from original prints) be uploaded? And are there any special rules for artist's signatures? I apologise for my comprehensive ignorance, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Beggarstaff works become public domain in the United Kingdom in 2020 (the start of the year after the authors have been dead for 70 years, or 70 pma). The work is already PD in the United States, because it was published before 1923. Whether the work is original or not is immaterial (after all, a digital copy is always a copy).

Commons is bound to respect the law in both the source country of the work, and the United States. English Wikipedia only cares about US law, so pre-1923 work can be uploaded there with the license w:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. The deletion request isn't very clear, and the situation can often be complicated with copyright, so you are right to ask –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. So, just to confirm, do I understand correctly that a faithful reproduction of any two-dimensional work created before 1923 by Nicholson (who died after Pryde) can be uploaded to Wikipedia with the tag {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2020}} regardless of the source of the image and of where it was created (my copy of this particular image happens to be from France)? And that any image by Pryde alone can be uploaded here, since he has been dead for more than 70 years? If so, I think that is straightforward enough for even me to follow. I have to ask, though, how these images got here? Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Any faithful reproduction of any two-dimensional work published before 1923 can be uploaded to Wikipedia with that tag. If the work was made created before 1923 but not published until later, then it can't be uploaded until 95 years after it was first published. For a discussion about the problems with determining whether an artwork has been published, see the section #Paintings and publication above. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Stefan4, for that additional clarification. I believe that, little by little, thanks to the patience of those who have replied, I am beginning to understand this. I see that the Beggarstaff images from Hiatt's book are tagged for deletion. However, I uploaded File:Beggarstaffs by Phil May, 1895.jpg (don't know how to link to it without calling it) today using the Upload Wizard, but there was red type all over the page, a missing parameter or something. I changed the tag to {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1903}} and it seems to have disappeared. Could I ask (a) if someone would kindly take a look to see if I did that right and (b) if there is something wrong with the Wizard? I mean, if a parameter is needed, wouldn't it be quite good if the Wizard asked for it during the upload? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did it fine. The Upload Wizard is mostly tuned towards people uploading their own work, it's very difficult to make a system that accounts for all the other many and varied circumstances that can result in an image being public domain. It would be a good idea for the Upload Wizard to ask the user for more information, but it would be quite a difficult system to develop (for instance, in your case it would have to know that the authors of the work were dead in the UK in 1942 or before and the work was published before 1923). Often rules differ depending on the type of the work, local jurisdiction, who did the work, whether it was a group/corporate/government/etc. work, whether it is subject to exceptions, phase of the moon, axial tilt of the Earth, author's type of moustache/brand of cigarettes/number of children/bra size, etc.

You can link to a file by putting a : before the name of the page. E.g. [[:File:Beggarstaffs by Phil May, 1895.jpg]] will render File:Beggarstaffs by Phil May, 1895.jpg –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The mention of the source The Studio, with no mention of an intermediate source but with a PD-Art tag, seems to imply that this is a reproduction that you made directly from a printed copy of The Studio, by means of photography. If that is indeed the case, you do not need the PD-Art tag. (In the source field, it may be useful to specify that you made the photographic reproduction.) Also, the file will need a tag that tells the status of the work in the United States. You could simply replace the PD-Art tag with the tag {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1903}}. Asclepias (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the trouble to reply. I hate to think what James Pryde's bra size might have been (he was a fat lad), but it would be great if the Upload Wizard could ask some extra questions once you've answered "No, this is not my own work", like perhaps "so when did the author die?" and "was this published before 1923?". In reply to Asclepias: that's what's bothering me, that I give the impression of having done one thing when I fact I did quite another (i.e., scan from a book published in Britain in 1996, which probably used a scan of a photograph taken who knows where by who knows whom (OK, yes, the image rights flunky of the publisher will know those details)). I do have some early copies of The Studio, but as far as I recall I don't have the one with that image in it. My understanding of the discussion above was that Commons did not give a toss how the image was obtained provided that (a) it was published before 1923 for US copyright reasons and (b) more than 70 years had elapsed since the death of the author because he was in Britain and that is the duration of author copyright in Britain. If that is not entirely correct then please put me right. All this is kind of like reliving childhood: I feel constantly out of my depth. Thanks again to those trying to teach me to swim. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you scanned the image from a book, then IMO the best thing to write in the "source" field would be something like: scanned from [insert the book reference, including title, publisher, year]. (If the book gives its own source, it can be mentioned too. The original publication in The Studio is already mentioned in the "description" field.) And, in the "licensing" section, you could use either {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1903}} or {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1903}} (depending if you think that the original reproduction was a photograph or a simple scan). What the discussion above says is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works published before 1923 can be uploaded to Wikipedia regardless of the source". (Although your question was about Wikipedia, the situation is the same for Commons.) That is because Wikimedia considers that such reproductions do not carry a copyright in the United States, the country where the Wikimedia websites are published. Now, that is not at all the same thing as saying that "Commons does not give a toss how the image was obtained" or that Commons condones the concealment of the information about the source. The fact that the image may be uploaded doesn't mean that it is not important to include the information about the source. Knowledge of the source is always important to the reusers, who should have access to all the relevant informations, allowing them to know if the source claims a copyright on the reproduction or not, and allowing them to decide if they can use the reproduction in their country (Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs). -- Asclepias (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Uploading a photograph while retaining some rights

I have found a good photograph of a living person, and would like to see it on that person's article on en:Wikipedia. I have contacted the photographer through a third party, and been told "I've just spoken to ... and she's more than happy for you to use the picture as long as she's acknowledged."

So what should I do next? I can direct her to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork, but unless she's much smarter than me, she'll have a problem working out what the various licenses mean. And I can direct here to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing, which has links to explanations of an apparently completely different set of licenses. I wish there were a comprehensible, one-stop, link I could give to people wanting to contribute their own work while retaining some rights. Maproom (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

First, are you sure that she is happy with the required license? It must be not just for use on WP:EN, but must be for free use anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. That is true whether she uploads here or at WP:EN.

If that's OK, then direct her to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork and tell her that she should pick a CC-BY license. While we allow several different licenses, that is the simplest one that requires attribution. It also has the advantage that the Creative Commons (CC) licenses are by far the most common ones used here.

After the upload is done, you or she should pick one or more appropriate categories. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not sure, you have already seen the entire extent of my communication with her. I would like to be able to direct her to a short, clear explanation of what the various licenses involve, and let her read them and decide. But I can't find such an explanation. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing does not offer one. It contains the string "CC-BY-SA" only once, in a way that is not helpful.

I am doubtful of the value of adding categories. The categories wizard is hard to use, requiring repeated use of cut-and-paste. When I have used it, other more experienced editors have removed my categories and added other more appropriate ones. Maproom (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I worked with a professional photographer to upload a reduced resolution portrait File:Ed Roberts 2002 by Spencer Smith.jpg. The photographer had no experience with the Commons or providing digital versions of their work. Determine what resolution and rights the photographer wants to give to the Commons. Write the text of the email granting the license and sent it to the photographer. Have them email it to OTRS, permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Include your email address or Commons name in that text so OTRS can contact you if needed. Upload the file with the license template and the OTRS pending template. The file name needs to be sent to OTRS, this can be done in the original email. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Swtpc6800. I have emailed the photographer (indirectly, as I don't know her address), CC to you. Maproom (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

samuel robert blanco

All rights reserved

Hi, thanks for posting here. Can you indicate what your query is, please? Do you need some help? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We may have a copyvio of one of his images. I searched the name and couldn't find any though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-GE-exempt}} and break-away republics

Can {{PD-GE-exempt}} be used for official works from break-away republics? See for example w:File:Abkhazia Visa.png. Is that image in the public domain for some reason, or is it correctly tagged as unfree? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

NNDB and copyright

NNDB (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNDB) contains some useful photographs of celebrities. But it doesn't seem to say anywhere what the copyright status is of these. Can anyone throw any light on this? The context is that I'm interesting in reusing some of them for another Wiki, http://lgbthistoryuk.org/wiki/ (based in the United Kingdom) and would like to have some idea of their status. I was a bit surprised that an apparently significant encyclopedic website such as NNDB appears to make no statement one way or the other about the images it displays and the extent to which people are permitted to reuse them, and wonder if anyone has any further information about what their attitude is, or how they deal with their source material. --Ross Burgess (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just another case of COM:CB#Internet images, I'd say. Clearly not an appropriate source of content for Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Canadian image

I would like to upload this image to Commons. According to the Vancouver Public Library the work is in the public domain, but does not state the reason. I would think it would be OK to use here, but as noted by the help files foreign image copyright status is complicated. Thus I figured it best to ask for more input before proceeding. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't think it is, since it looks like the photographer is known, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Canada Looks like 50 yr pma if not anonymous. You might try asking Vancouver Public Library why they think it's PD, there may be some nuances we don't list. Dankarl (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For instance, File:Canadian Public Domain.svg says corporate ownership leads to PD at 50 years post publication, a point not addressed by our guideline. I better punt this one off to someone else.Dankarl (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have sent an email request for clarification, as per your suggestion... I assume that VPL knows what they are talking about when they say it is PD in Canada. What I was uncertain about is if being in PD in Canada is sufficient for Commons upload in all cases. --ThaddeusB (talk)

The SVG appears to be correct (and it is 50 years from creation not publication), based on older law, which had this section on the copyright term for photographs:

10. (1) Where the owner referred to in subsection (2) is a corporation, the term for which copyright subsists in a photograph shall be the remainder of the year of the making of the initial negative or plate from which the photograph was derived or, if there is no negative or plate, of the initial photograph, plus a period of fifty years.

(1.1) Where the owner is a corporation, the majority of the voting shares of which are owned by a natural person who would have qualified as the author of the photograph except for subsection (2), the term of copyright is the term set out in section 6. [i.e. 50pma]

(2) The person who

(a) was the owner of the initial negative or other plate at the time when that negative or other plate was made, or

(b) was the owner of the initial photograph at the time when that photograph was made, where there was no negative or other plate, is deemed to be the author of the photograph and, where that owner is a body corporate, the body corporate is deemed for the purposes of this Act to be ordinarily resident in a treaty country if it has established a place of business therein.

That section was repealed in 2012, so it is no longer effective, and photographs get the normal copyright terms. However, copyright which had expired previously was not revived, so yes, corporate photographs (so long it was not majority-owned by a natural person) taken before 1962 would still be PD (whereas I think 1949 is the cutoff for individuals due to even earlier versions of the law). The SVG is correct to a point, but needs to be updated for the 2012 law changes. Note, however, photos would still be protected in the U.S. if they were still under copyright in Canada in 1996, so before 1946 may be the practical cutoff for Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So, shouldn't we add a line to {{PD-Canada}} about corporate photos taken before 1962? De728631 (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a bunch of updates that need to be made to the template. I'll take a crack at it this weekend. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

VPL has confirmed that the picture in question was corporate owned and therefore was in public domain before the 2012 law change. Now the question is if it can be used on Commons. It is unclear to me how the URAA effects this picture, if at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I think I figured it out. The picture was published in 1961 (in Canada) and not published in the USA, so before 1996 it was treated as a unregistered publication and thus in public domain as of 1989. Since it was still in copyright in Canada as of 1996, The URAA applies and treats it as if it was published in the US with proper notice and renewed. Therefore, it won't enter US public domain until 2056. Kind of strange that a work can be in public domain in Canada for 45 years and not be US public domain, but I guess that is the way it is. Let me know if I'm mistaken. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Thaddeus. It is public domain in Canada, but not the U.S. It cannot be hosted on the Commons. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

FOP again

w:List of Academy Award trophies on public display. Do any qualify for FOP even though the sculpture was country of origin USA? I just noticed Category:Academy Awards that has many that aren't Commons:De minimis.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, these are OK on Commons when on display in any country (such as the UK) which allows FoP. FoP laws don't discriminate by the original 'country of origin' of the thing being displayed, or by the nationality of the designer/artist. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

At en:wp one editor seems to think we can't host them at commons because the statue is copyright in the USA where the servers are.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The question is debatable; it's not completely clear where in the choice of law FoP-type stuff would fall. We had typically been allowing them on Commons, but there was an issue of a DMCA request filed by an artist, and the WMF chose to take the images down. There are one or two European cases which basically ruled along those lines -- the FoP situation in another country did not prevent them from being infringements in another country. But neither of those are based on U.S. law. I suspect the situation could be different when the statues were placed in FoP countries by someone other than the copyright owner; that is less likely to be OK than when an author knowingly places one of their own statues permanently in a FoP situation. If the Academy filed a DMCA request on such photos, I doubt anyone would stand in the way of removal. But, previous policy had been to allow them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I should have asked you sooner. We may need to modify Commons:Freedom of panorama, Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter, and Commons:Derivative works to reflect that. Do we need WMF legal to weigh in? We also may need to create a new tag I have mentioned before: "This image may go away. Please avoid use in print media etc where it will be hard to take down!" type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fair to include recent examples as part of a case book. I would encourage common sense resistance to simply rolling over and giving in to a knee-jerk response of deletions; this is another case of quite insignificant doubt (due to a lack of anyone claiming any damages against anyone in any country) rather than the significant doubt as to copyright status that we would normally expect for a deletion against COM:L. --Fæ (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am still worried about US copyright law for images hosted on commons. If we have a museum take a picture in the UK of the Oscar then will the Academy lawyer up when they see it on posters in the US? Does the US copyright law cover imported images of 3D works that are under copyright in the US?--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are any U.S. court cases to give a precedent, which is the problem. The template {{Not-free-US-FOP}} was created to document the uncertainty. Deleting such images would be a change from previous policy. There have been long discussions on it without much consensus. Truth be told, if we faced DMCA notices on a wide array of works -- maybe we thought there was no copyright notice, or below the threshold of originality -- they may all be taken down if nobody wants to challenge the takedown notice (even if our original determination is right). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is of some concern, and I was not aware of the DMCA takedown when I posted my comment above. However, I also agree with Fae that we should not make significant restrictions to policy unless we absolutely have to. Any change to relying only on US FoP laws would have a devastating effect on tens of thousands of images, I would guess. It would also impact heavily on a significant number of WLM and GLAM-related photographs. The WMF legal team is clearly aware of this issue, and if they felt the WMF were legally unable to allow hosting on their servers of non-US FoP photographs I imagine they would have to instruct the community to delete all those we have. I the absence of that, it seems quite reasonable for us to leave the policy as it is. That particular takedown may have been based on specific facts of which we are unawere but which the WMF felt bound to take into account. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone in the UK or GLAM projects contact the people that have Oscar on display to see about providing an image to replace the fair use one we have on en:wp then? My OP link should have links to their articles which link to emails etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WMF legal is going to weigh in on this and we should hear back the week of May 6.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

BBC Your Paintings

Sorry, me again, more questions. This has probably been asked and answered many times before, but: does Commons maintain that reproductions of old works of art are public domain even if those images contain digital watermarks designed specifically to protect the copyright of the image owner? Or does the addition of the digital watermark mean that the image is no longer a faithful reproduction, as it has been intentionally altered after it was created? I'm thinking of images such as File:William Harold Cubley, by William Harold Cubley.jpg, taken from the BBC's Your Paintings site. The copyright page of that site reads (in part) as follows:

"The BBC and the Public Catalogue Foundation are committed to respecting the intellectual property rights of others. All images are covered by the BBC's standard terms and conditions.

Each image is also protected with a secure invisible digital watermark that allows the Public Catalogue Foundation and other copyright owners to identify and track any unauthorised use of the image."

Of course, I myself don't know whether that invisible watermark even exists; but I'd like to know whether the experts think that images from that site can be freely uploaded here. I'm already clear that you wouldn't want to do that from a UK IP address, as there'd be a stonking fine if they did ever decide to run you down. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In commons the position is that adding a watermark does not create any new copyright if the underlying image does not have one. The watermark can be removed. Ruslik (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the "watermark" might be in this case, it may refer to a JPG comment or something in the EXIF data, or maybe something more tricky embedded in the image data itself. You're right that the Public Catalogue Foundation are in a position to enforce their rights on the reproductions in the UK, and you would have to take care if you were in the UK or any other country which allows such images to be copyrighted. Images such as this one ("PD-Art") are a special case where Commons ignores the copyright status in the source country (see the disclaimer text on {{PD-Art}} and Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs). For an example of a UK institution attempting to enforce their rights outside the UK: User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat –⁠moogsi (blah) 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting approach by the BBC, and I think by watermark they mean something embedded but hidden within the image, which will probably not be removable. That's done with a mathematical algorithm which very slightly adjusts individual pixels during conversion to the online format. Even if a UK court might potentially uphold copyright, I would expect that the image would still be allowed here on the basis of the legal approach taken by the WMF (which is followed by our rules). Since the BBC is unlikely to agree, it would be sensible for any uploading to be done outside the UK. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all who replied. I'm going to take that as a green light (I'm not in the UK). There about 29000 paintings on that site. Some of them are quite good. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So I've now uploaded a few works from that site. I used Photoshop to import and tidy them. Just out of curiosity, I tried the "Read Watermark" command under Digimarc in the filters menu, both on an image that I copied directly from the site and another that, because of its size, I imported in two parts by taking screenshots. The watermark is read perfectly in both cases, and leads straight to the BBC Your Paintings website. Just thought people might like to be aware of that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Just a few comments and suggestions:

• For artworks, it is recommended to use the template "Artwork" instead of the template "Information", and to fill in as many relevant fields as possible. The Your paintings site should have at least some of those informations, which can be inserted.
• Links to the description pages of the works at Your paintings (or at the relevant museums) would be useful.
• Many of your uploads still seem to miss a U.S. copyright status tag. Where useful, please consider using either the template "PD-Art-two", with two copyright tags as parameters, or the template "PD-Art", with one dual-purpose copyright tag as parameter. If the reproduction itself is licensed, you can consider using the template "Licensed-PD-Art-two" or the template "Licensed-PD-Art".
• Some of your uploads seem, at first look, like they might be copyright violations. Looking for a suitable U.S. copyright tag will either help dispel this uncertainty by telling clearly why you believe the work is free in the United Sates, or help filter out actual copyright violations.
• The addition of the category Images from BBC Your Paintings would be useful.

-- Asclepias (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Attribution

If just search, with [Google Image|http://images.google.co.uk/imghp?hl=en-GB] for use of some images uploaded here and found some without attribution but what does "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author" in the case of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Bootle_town_hall_2.JPG , I have requested attribution but not mentioned a how. JIrate (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Every time you Upload or Edit a page (you can click edit above to check) there's a note that you agree that for any upload you make - the manner of attribution is a hyperlink back to the image on commons. There's probably a policy page defining this but I can't find it at the moment. In theory this could be problematic when works are copied from other sites and the authors haven't agreed to this manner of attribution (or have specified another method of attribution) but it's fine for any of your own works you upload. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is really wrong. It is true only about editing the pages, but not at all about uploading media. Please see Commons:Licensing and paragraphs "d" and "g" of section 7 of the WMF terms of use. Please note the difference between the conditions for reusing text and non-text material. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really wrong, although I see where you're coming from - Our own use of it seem to be adapted from the Creative Commons best Practise for attribution where if no instruction on Attribution is given, a link back to the origin of the work and the users name linked back to their profile at the origin of the work should be given. There is no requirement that the linking is done (the names alone could be seen to comply) , or that both pieces of information are included , but it is advised. I'm thinking that if this isn't currently recorded anywhere (you point out policy and terms of services that only mention attribution for text but don't even discuss the subject for media.) we should point out that this is best practise (on any attrib license not just CC ones) for re-users who may not be aware such best practise exists - equally an agreement for those uploading that this should be an accepted minimum form of attribution (unless uploaders specify attribution) to prevent merit-less claims by uploaders against re-users who are following CC best practise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Google Images is using a fair use claim, regardless of what license you may place even if it's All rights reserved (like most images on the internet). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not th Google Images that I have a problem with but the Websites that it has found using look for example Image and the commerical use selling Skips and Merseyside Police. JIrate (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

See the full text of the license Article 4,b,i: the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties. At the page File:Bootle town hall 2.JPG you gave a name in the author field and you made no other specification on attribution, so that name is the required attribution. --Martin H. (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphan works in the United States

Copy/pasted from User talk:Foroa Dag Foroa, in het kader van de Freedom of panorama maakte ik een beginnetje met de werken van Eugène Atget, onder welke Category hoort deze Category:Orphan works in the United States nu thuis? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Bestaat dat ook al ? Ik denk dat je dat beter op Commons:Village pump/Copyright aankaart, misschien is er ook een apart type licentie nodig; en zo komen die mensen ook op de hoogte van dergelijke gevallen. --Foroa (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestion/idea where Orphan works in the United States should be categorized? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Copyright violations? In theory, Commons should not host unlicensed works that are copyrighted in the U.S., so this category should probably be empty. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The works in this category were in the public domain in France on the URAA date, but the country of origin seems to be USA. Not necessarily copyvio; it depends on USA copyright formalities. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The category "Category:Orphan works in the United States" is about orphan works in the United States. As such, it is unrelated to any other country. It seems that "orphan works in the United States" would by definition be works that are copyrighted in the United States and, by implication, they would be unlicensed. Unlicensed works copyrighted in the United States can't be hosted on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple NPDs

Hi, I've tagged an image with {{npd}}, but the same user has uploaded multiple others that appear to have the same problem. Should I just tag them all separately? Thanks, – 296.x (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you should. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. – 296.x (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of Schengen visas?

Category:Schengen visas contains a lot of visas from various countries. These visas are issued by lots of European countries, some with laws saying that things like this are PD and some with laws saying that things like this aren't PD. However, as the same design is used in all countries, there must be a single unique source country for all of those images. What is the source country for these visas, and does the law of the source country, or some other rule, say that these visas are freely licensed for some reason? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Usually, when the source country is disputed, there are two cases. Either various candidates are vying for one spot, or they can all be considered the country of origin. In the first case (e.g. it has been lost in the historical record whether something originated in the US or the UK), we choose the more restrictive option. In the second case (e.g. taking a picture of a French building across a river in Germany, or vice versa), we choose the less restrictive option. As this falls into the latter, I believe we can just choose the country which is least restrictive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Artist painting a portrait

Is this photo possible to upload? --Jonund (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

COM:GRAFFITI may help and Commons:GRAFFITI#Murals.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since this is in France with no FoP, probably not. However, you could crop it so that the main subject is the painter, and then the painting would be WP:DM. (I remember a while back, there was an FPC on enwiki that was held for several months pending the outcome of a DR here, concerning a photo of someone painting a mural in LA. It showed the full area of the mural, but the mural was incomplete. Ultimately, it was kept.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Threshold on logos

Are all logos at http://yoohoo.auroraworld.com/tmp/friends/yoohoo.aspx below COM:TOO or just the yellow and white only text ones? w:YooHoo and Friends article could use one but not sure which to upload. Yes I will tell you how I came across the article if you really want to know.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Imho, there's not much originality going on in the main logo. Two cartoony fonts with a fat outline and the bottom half of a circular gradient behind it. If the Best Western logo doesn't meet the threshold, I don't see how this would. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 20:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Where to send permission and what tag?

I would like to upload a file already on en.wikipedia (CahiersOctaveMirbeau2009.jpg). The Société Octave Mirbeau has provided the picture and explicitly granted permission to use it to illustrate articles relevant to its activities. I can't find the tag I should use and where I should forward the permission from the copyright owner. Thanks in advance. Jaucourt (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! In order for the file to be transferred to the Commons, it has to be released into the public domain (for example, using {{Cc-zero}}) or licensed with a licence like {{Cc-by-3.0}} which makes freely usable for any purpose, not just for Wikipedia articles. In other words, Commons content has to be usable by third parties for purposes outside Wikipedia, and must be freely distributable and modifiable. The permission from Société Octave Mirbeau must clearly state they are agreeable to this (so a statement like "the image can be used in Wikipedia articles" is not sufficient). If you can obtain the society's confirmation of this, forward the consent to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. For more information on this procedure, see "Commons:OTRS". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

EU Pictograms

EU Directive provides several pictograms which are connected with chemistry hazards (page 12). What is their copyright status? Can I reproduce them and upload to Commons as a personal work based on this directive? — Mfomich (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that most of them are already present in Category:DIN 4844-2 mandatory action signs (vector drawings). De728631 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! The categorization is a bit strange. — Mfomich (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I also need the same information about pictograms from [8] on p. 64—65. — Mfomich (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of images taken in space

Please could you tell me what country's copyright law images taken in space are under? I know NASA images are public domain but there are many other agencies taking images, is it the law of the agency or person taking the images or the country that they were over at the time of taking the images?

Yours confusedly

Mrjohncummings (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly assume the agency/person involved; the country below them (which is the Pacific a lot of the time!) is tangential. ESA claims copyright on all its images, certainly from unmanned spacecraft. There has been some suggestion in the past that it should be based on the "jurisdiction" of the spacecraft itself, but that breaks down as soon as you think about the ISS - three different countries plus one multinational organisation have provided modules they could be in... Andrew Gray (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say the law or rules of the photographer's employer. This would be the same as pictures taken on ships in international waters. On their time off with their own camera that may change things. Just a guess though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be simpler to talk to ESA to convince them a CC-BY-SA license is a very good idea for the their educational objectives. http://www.esa.int/Education/ESA_at_the_forefront_of_space_education Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe this has been tried before without much luck (not sure if discussions were here or on en, though) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The person who takes the photo is still the author, and they or (most often) the organization they work for would be the copyright owners. As for "which law" applies -- it is the law of wherever you plan to make use of the photos. The Berne "country of origin" would be the country where the work was first published; that may get into some theoretical situations with multinational missions but it would likely be the country of the owning person or organization. That is mostly irrelevant though as such works would be recognized as under copyright in most nations, so it is a matter of what license the copyright owner gives it. The location where a work is made basically never has any relevance to the copyright (unless it's a building). Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Pictures on NASA Webpages

1. I would like to upload the picture from this NASA-Webpage. Credit text says: NASA/GSFC/University of Maryland. Am I allowed to upload the picture to Commons, and when it is allowed what Copyright Tag I must need?
2. For this picture the Credit text says: NASA/JPL/ Michael Carroll. The picture has the same Copyright status like number one, has it?--Uwe W. (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• On the same topic, the phtograph of Ikeya-Seki here: http://stardustnext.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/comets.html which mentions that the credit/author is unknown. Can it be upload simply because it is in NASA website?
• And the photos here http://www.w7ftt.net/ikeyaseki1.html have a watermark that says that the picture should be credited to NASA/JPL/TMO and James W. Young but I failed to find the pictures in NASA website. Is the watermark adequate to say that it is a Public Domain file? --C messier (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

NASA typically credits everyone involved in a project -- they are not necessarily the same as authorship but often do give clues. meta:Wikilegal/NASA images has some guidance, but it's not straightforward. NASA often does contract with outside artists.

1. Gut feeling for this, I'd probably lean towards saying it's OK. The credit to the University of Maryland may just have to do with their involvement in the project, but it's possible the NASA agency produced the work.
2. This is by en:Michael Carroll (space artist). It would depend on the contract between him and NASA. Not sure on that one... the artist has a page here with a contact address.
3. For the Ikeya-Seki image... no, I would not assume that. They likely got it from some external source which would mean it would not be PD-USGov-NASA. We'd have to find some other rationale for PD status. In that case, per here and here it appears to be taken by Andrew Drawneek in Manawatu, New Zealand. The image of Comet West on that page (also "unknown" there) appears to be by Dennis and Betty Milon, taken at 4AM on March 7, 1976 in Sullivan, New Hampshire per here and here and other places.
4. The Table Mountain Observatory is part of the JPL and the credited author en:James Whitney Young looks like he was an employee, so yes I'd say those are fine. It sounds like Charles F. Capen was also a TMO employee.

Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. It appears that the first Ikeya-Seki image, is not an image of Ikeya-Seki as mentioned, but one of Comet McNaught (C/2006 P1). --C messier (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The first image has a contact info at the University of Maryland, better ask there about the copyright status of their contribution. It's always better to ask if NASA credits work to an outside organization to avoid possible issues/deletion in the future. --Denniss (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

General question about corporate copyright

While trying to come up with a valid license for File:Map of Halifax c. 1890.JPG, I realize that I don't know when the copyright of a work attributable to an organization (in this case Wagner & Debes, Leipzig) would expire. I know some territories have explicit tags for this, e.g. {{PD-Japan-organization}}, but does Europe (or more specifically, Germany) have any concept of corporate copyright, or must it be held by natural persons? –⁠moogsi (blah) 23:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting area. Some common rules:

• In Europe, there is usually no difference between corporate and normal works. That is, the copyright normally expires 70 years after the death of the employee who made the work.
• In the United Kingdom and possibly other countries, the definition of "anonymous" seems to change if it is a corporate work: corporate works are anonymous if the author isn't credited, whereas other works only are anonymous if the name of the author isn't revealed within 70 years after publication (or 70 years after creation if not published for 70 years).
• In Germany, there seems to be some law (Kunsturhebergesetz §25?) which together with article 10 of the w:Copyright Duration Directive might say that corporate works created (or published?) before some particular date (which?) are protected for 70 years since publication if the name of the employee isn't given in the publication and for 70 years since the death of the employee if his name is given. Also, artistic corporate works created between some year (which?) and July 1995 (?) might be protected for life+70 years without exception (that is, even if anonymous). This has been mentioned in some discussions somewhere, but hasn't been sorted out completely. It may be better to create a separate template for anonymous German works as it seems to be particularly tricky.

In some European countries, the initial copyright holder is the employer, and in other countries, the initial copyright holder is the employee. However, this does not necessarily affect the copyright term. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I need some pre-check off help

Hi, I need a bit of help,

About ten years ago my vision started deteriorating, and by about four years ago, I found the work I was doing on various Wikimedia projects (9 I think, e.g. including esp Historical Maps here and loads on Wikipedia) was giving serious headaches and too much eyestrain, so have drawn back online activities so much that I just make the occasional fix it edit, mainly on en.wikipedia. Ironically, back on the fourteenth I joined a educationally oriented user group because of the occasional little browsing I now do, Yesterdayz Trainz, that I've been trying to re-energize into maintaining and updating the somewhat dated Trainz Wikibook and to convince them (over the dissent voiced by a couple of that book's original authors—that it is a proper mission for our group to maintain that and extend it with the suite of How-To tutorials. The dissent comes from some who got fed up with wiki licensing (and wading through wiki-site seemingly endless communications and policy pages—these folks weren't interested in learning wiki-speak/culture, but focused on paying forward to a world wide user base. Doubtless that is not a new story on Wikibooks.) that the 'tutorial fruit' would have a easily found host site which wouldn't vanish some cold winter night. (What makes this doubly amusing to me, my personal irony, is my wiki activity dropped off directly as my eyes developed light sensitivity to working all day on computers, then browsing... Trainz (brown, green, grays, blue) 'pastoral worlds' were by contrast a soothing and comfortable relief from eyestrain computer experience, so as I diminished web activity, I increased 'recreation time' in a Trainz universe. Now Trainz has brought me full circle, for I needed knowledge and began again browsing a bit.)

Brief background

• The family of TRAINZ Railroad Simulators are not designed for a quick launch 'game' mode. A new product takes quite a bit of learning to get into and find how to start it all working together. A launcher front end can get the user going in the right direction, and the manuals are excellent for the basics. Once a family progresses to a desire to use the simulator outside of 'Play' mode, there are at first, what seems to be a daunting complicated suite of three main run-time environments that together allow a new user to drive a virtual world populated with interactive 'assets' and experience operating a train locomotive—either in a easy 'model train' mode or by a highly realistic (Full dynamic, accurate physics) control means. (Play or Simulator mode)
• Just learning to initially drive the tutorials can be daunting if a user skips reading the excellent .pdf file manual or forgets to print the keyboard guide.
• More advanced Trainzing normally begins when a new owner explores the World Creation model, most likely to modify one of the dozen or so railroad layouts bundled with his particular version of the product. (That content varies by release, the base three run-time software modules have been remarkably stable, and only slowly evolved adding capabilities, virtually not changing in what and how you do things, but incrementally improving, especially graphically. All such content creation/assets allow the user base (over a million) to access the free shared 'assets' created by the world community. (Trainz began multilingual language support in the second release, and first major upgrade, TRS2004. (I've seen: Spanish, French, Polish, Russian, Italian, Arabic, Malay, Farsi,... the facility is extensible, even to English <G>)
• The next step a creative Trainzer makes is to create content (requires a number of software packages, and mastering at least parts of them) and share it with similar licensing to the GNU on the Auran.com Download Station, which interfaces directly with the third run-time module, Content Manager. Thus in any Trainz release, if you want to add a new kind of asset (Steel Mill, Sugar Factory, House, Shrub, Animal... Fence, roadway, sign...) you search the database using various filters, and can with a few simple steps (Shopping cart, select order, synch the Content Manager, start downloading), and continue adding selections to the shopping cart in the browser. It is the endless extensibility and power of the accurate real world simulation that makes Trainz a special kind of 'family software'.

That's the knowledge gap need inspiring the mission of our organization, to train up new content creators and advance the general Trainz world building skills in a fun and supportive way. Take away the fear of taking the plunge to master a new Software graphics package and put it all together with mentors who've done it, and can help the learners get past stumbling blocks and master the new skills.

Our organization

We're currently transitioning from organizing and communicating by email to a couple of (semi-suitable) web site threads—but until I finish collating and posting up the historical thread, there's nothing much to look at on the forums at N3V/Auran. I've yet to collate the emails from the 6th founding to the 10th which antedated my membership. The website design is mainly an open forum, does not host imaging (must hotlink) and the so called groups threads are almost useless: limited to 1000 character posts with no facility to quote and reply (unlike the main BB threads). Co-ordination by email has become chaotic, since the thread of the conversations are unorganized and non-linear. Hence, with growing pains... we're transitioning to (currently) two general web board threads.

The current core group (15 original members, ... 17, 22,... now 24) began discussions on April 6th by email and are mainly railroad enthusiasts (The current youngest is 52) shading in age to their 80s, mainly retirees, have international (Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, India and USA) addresses, and I surmise a certain inflexibility and intolerance for 'foolish nonsense' as they perceived it. At least one or two butted heads against copyright issues, disappearing/deleted images, (And, iirc, in that era en.Wikipedia was moving as much as possible to here on the commons) without understanding why fully, the wiki cultures when they helped put up the Wikibook in 2008-2009. Point being, these seniors like myself these days have troubles reading all the overhead and had trouble integrating their older outlook with wiki cultural think and rules. In short the Wikibook got abandoned because of culture clash. Sad. I'm only 58 and I fully understand, the more youthful can zoom out and tolerate a wide page view I can't begin to read. After your forties, vision begins to stiffen and so forth. Also, older community contributors have less energy and likely outside their fields, less flexibility and efficiency. I know, for I'm experiencing the phase.

1. The first confirmation I need is my interpretation of Commons:FAQ#What_is_this_site_about.3F, is perfectly fine as a justification for uploading our tutorial image contents here. These are in the static form, mainly screenshots, from 1440x900 (and likely much better) native monitor video modes I imagine many will be screenshots supporting text.
   1. In a tutorial I'm putting together, for example I've taken blanks for others to use in another language, and Hand edited the images in English. Hence a French or Polish Wikibook can translate my text, copy and annotate their image and have a tutorial to and for the wider audience, same topic.
   2. How welcome are dynamic video clips (Fraps or the equivalent) capturing sections about how-to do things. (I've zip knowledge on this, or on Wikimedia policy on them) I need a go/no go answer, including size/time limit requirements and instructions on how to upload one once produced. Preferentially, they can be cut down and an voice over track added before upload, so would we would upload/add the voiceless version too,
   3. 'or' is there wikimedia technology to link and synchronize a voice over to a common video? That would be really nice! Ideal if simple.
2. With respect to Commons:FAQ#Can_I_upload_text_of_which_I_am_the_author.3F, which license of tutorial screenshots and video clips, if welcomed, WOULD be PREFERRED to make the lives of work here easier. You people do a wonderful job, so take a back pat from someone that's only spent the odd few dozen man days or so contributing here.
3. In my persuading, I've offered to be a referee of sorts interfacing between cultures. Point being can I representing the group, upload and license, et. al. on behalf of the group if we create it and assign the rights to the group via GNU. (Trying not to let a 77 y.o get frustrated and confused here, folks.) How can we best manage licensing if I also upload on behalf of and one assumes, they never log in to Wikimedia sites ever.

Thankyou for your time and attention. Any suggestions or specific concerns please email me at gmail.com, same username. I will of course be watching for an answer here as well. // FrankB 15:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Frank, a couple of quick thoughts:

• There is no problem in you acting as the agent of others, so long as suitable permission is on file. I suggest you consider emailing permissions-commonswikimedia.org from a verifiable email address, copying any supporting emails from the individuals or groups whose work you would want to upload. This way, an OTRS ticket can support every image you upload. If you have not used OTRS tickets before, then the OTRS volunteer who replies should be able to help (be aware, there may be a queue of a couple of weeks).
• Try reading COM:Screenshots, you need to take care to ensure everything you are copying from the screen is available on a suitable free reuse license.
• I get put off by too much glaring white, it is worth trying different skins for commons under your user Preferences. If you are up to fiddling with your css file (under Preferences/Appearance), you can map the standard layout of Commons to any colour or text size you wish. See my own vector skin, User:Fæ/vector.css, which simplifies the screen by making the non-main body areas black with white or cyan text, the footer disappear, and links get highlighted in a high visibility orange when I float over them (far easier for my tired eyes as I have difficulty with too much clutter on the screen). Have a go, you can always switch it back again. Normally both Macs and Windows have options for either inverting the colours on your screen, or swapping to a high visibility colour set; it may be worth testing these out as a simple solution. --Fæ (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirms on the 'way I'd guessed it would be' -- I'll check the links by early in the week (up to my ... alligators, just now!) and foresee no problems with the agency stuff with the group but should have no problems on that given our education and unconfuse mission.

At the risk of seeming ungracious, can you or someone else address the video clip questions?

You know, reading over that weasel wording in COM:Screenshots, the implication I get is that Auran/N3V has to not sell products and release them by source code in the public domain. Are you people out of your mind? You disallow even NOTEPAD images, as derivative works! INSANE. I'm sure N#V/Auran ... they'll likely give a release to use screenshots of any of their run time GUI's, and additionally the specific 'layout' loaded creating the world/route appearance being demonstrated, after all, what's one frame in 24/second generated??? Icons and controls and are the subject of the piece, so of course they'll need displayed. This strict interpretation tells me you all have incompetent legal council. Proof test: If I take a photo of hands and screen doing exactly the same thing (but in lesser detail) you'd allow it under 'original creation'. You need to enter the modern world. Computers have arrived, we don't use quills and ink bottles any more.

Thanks on the .css file advice, I was aware it could be customized for my Wikipedia's boot-in loads up some hover tools and such, but don't actually know where to find it anymore. On that visible mode change, there's also a quantity factor, working all day on the monitor then...? I can't quite picture working on a forest green or tan wikipage, but... heck, if I get a few moments, may be worth giving it a go. Thanks! // FrankB 16:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

For video uploads, there is a guide at Commons:Video. You can see my examples at Category:Videos by Fæ. These were originally from my camera in a non-open Sony high definition format, and I converted them using Firefogg. One way of doing this was to first upload them to Youtube, edit them there, and then download the clipped/fixed video in mp4 format and then convert that to the open OGV format in Firefogg. It's a bit convoluted I know, but I don't have any decent video editing tools on my somewhat underpowered old desktop.

With regard to the icon thing, you can include anything which is open. Unfortunately it would be reasonable to expect some software producers to vigorously defend anything they might interpret as their copyright (icons within a Microsoft Windows operating system, for example). If in doubt, it may be worth uploading a couple of samples for discussion on this noticeboard before investing a lot of effort in capturing material in a certain way. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks again, that is a very sensible suggestion. I'll even draft the simple tutorial on one of my workspace pages we can link and see exactly how expect most helpful beginner materials will look. The icons in Trainz, which has had a very stable look-see-feel all the way back to version 1.0 shouldn't be a problem as N3V/Auran only gains when operations and confusion are demystified. Thanks again.

On the notepad issue, it is the easiest suggestion to newcomers to make since it's bundled with Windows, however, I can root around and find a gnu licensed text editor, probably one that has open source code that shouldn't possess such a legal hurdle. Such tutorials are with respect to altering certain old tag names (data field names) and their content which have become obsolete data entries as the Trainz data model progress. For example, the 'created-by' tag followed by a "quoted string" in TRS2004, was obsolescent in TRS2006 giving a warning. In later versions, especially in the new 64 bit graphics model of TRS2012, data type checking has been tightened and instead of a warning, now such older content generates an error. Another common error was created by a parsing read of such a quoted string, when a creator or modifier included the carriage return and linefeed ASCII codes (newline, what a text editor inserts when we humans type the [Enter] key) sequence generating a manual line wrap. Later versions were intolerant of the quoted string embedding the newline, and added and end quote, parsed the first word after the new line as another tag name, and supplied a begin quote to the balance. If such a line had several newlines inside the quotes, the new (bad) tag creation occurs for each. The fix is very simple, rebuild the line properly so there are no newlines and the quotes balance. The operation is scary to the newcomer, so an illustration or two with highlighting the error so it can be seen before and then after, should ally such fears. Or so I hope.

I see if I can get the example put together in the next 36 hours or so (by the night after tomarrow night for me.) // FrankB 02:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)