Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/09

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright

File:SFP logo variation.png and threshold of originality

I'd like some input on whether this is beyond threshold of originality and thus eligible for copyright or too simple? My thoughts are that it is not eligible for copyright. On en.wikipedia the image is tagged as non-free, but here as free "own work" (which is invalid, but beside the point right now). Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a tricky questions. Nobody exactly knows where the threshold of originally actually is, especially in Singapore. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Logos Dutch government

I was asked by an employee of the Dutch government to remove two uploads of logo's of the Dutch government. I uploaded them as to me they are published with the Creative Commons license but I adviced her to start a deletion request to let specialists decide.

As those logos are used as brand in governmental publications like videos and documents released under Creative Commons. I am wondering how to deal with this logo situation. Any opinions? --Hannolans (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hannolans: they seem to have been changing their licensing; related discussion below. Qwertyus (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
As this change is for photographs it has no impact on logo's, but strange it is. --Hannolans (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Joseph F. Smith family.png

I have tried a number of times since 13 November 2013 to get this images Copyright statues ether correct or deleted. However, Admin User:Yann User:Fastily decided to undelete (without any discussionnotification to me). Then Admin User:Yann keep the image, despite the obviousness of the issues. While I admit I am no expert, I have uploaded several hundred images of the same nature as this image. I know that the Copyright licensing for this image is totally incorrect. Additionally I still feel that the image is a copyright violation. It is tagged with {{PD-US}} and {{PD-old}}

  1. {{PD-US}} - per Commons:Licensing and Help:Public domain Creation is NOT Publication i.e. {{PD-US}} requires not simply creation before 1923, but actual publication. If it was there would be no need for {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Therefore the fact that this image is from 1904 doesn't mean {{PD-US}} applies as was published in 2005 per the Source information. It may well have been published before, but that information has never been give. Tagging it as {{PD-US}} i.e. was Published in 1904 is blatantly false given the lack of a publican source.
  1. {{PD-old}} doesn't apply. First you cannot use {{PD-old}} when the date of death of the Author is unknown. Tagging it as {{PD-old}} is blatantly false if you don't know who the author is. Second as this image is part of the Widtsoe Collection which is still copyrighted "John A. Widtsoe" died in 1952, making it only 54 years since Authors Death.

Since this image has no source sited as to a publication date prior to 1923 and the author is Author is unknown, Help:Public_domain:Anonymous Unpublished works would apply so this image must have been created at 120+ years ago or before 1895, NOT 1904.

However, since Admin User:Yann decided that there was "No serious doubt that it is in the public domain." despite my "serious doubts" and User:Lx 121 (the user who requested it be undeleted and kept) have never addressed the issues, I have decuded to bring it here. Again I admit I am no expert, but I have seen enough images deleted for these very issues to know that there is a problem. If someone can fix them then I will be happy to have the image here, but until then it really needs to be deleted, but I don't think I'm allowed to renominate an image for deletion a third time.

So can someone help fix this?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I concur with your analysis. Since we are in doubt as to its copyright status, there seems to be no question that it should be deleted. That it was created in 1904 is immaterial. What matters, as you note, is when it was published and/or when the author died. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, For the completeness of this case, you need to add that Carl L. and Jim agree that this file is OK, and they are certainly more knowledgeable than you about copyright. And I didn't undelete this file, it was done by Fastily. Get the facts right before arguing about anything. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You are correct, I thought that page was the original deletion request. I apologize for my the mistake.
However, even if I didn't "facts right" that doesn't make my analysis of the files issues incorrect. Even though Carl L. and Jim "Leaned towards support" agree that the issue isn't clear. "The question is nowhere near as clear as LX121's tone suggests." per Jim . They both say that {{PD-US}} (called PD-1923 back then) requires evidence of publication. Therefore my analysis, both during the original deletion and my second request and here is still correct. I have seen hundreds of files deleted for this very same reason. It should have been deleted or fixed a long time ago, but you (Yann) and Lx 121 refused to discuses the issue (File talk:Joseph F. Smith family.png). Per the Commons:Precautionary principle it should never have been undelted or kept.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Just a point, {{PD-US}} and {{PD-1923}} are not equivalent. The first is for works published in the USA, the second for works published elsewhere. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
They both say the same thing, "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923." I don't see a difference. However, this is irrelevant and not why I came here. The files used {{PD-US}}.
Ultimately, I didn't want to get in trouble for putting it up a third time, but I know this licenes is wrong. My goal coming here was to get help "Fixing the issue" or getting a valid explanation why the current licences apples, not re-debating deleting it.
It come down to the fact, as it says at Wikipedia:Reviewing free images:Common misconceptions, "Creation is not publication: Sources often only provide the date a work was created. Creation is quite different from publication.....For PD claims based on the date of first publication, the source needs to indicate the actual publication date." Therefore {{PD-US}} is not correct. Additionally you cannot use {{PD-old}} when the date of death of the Author is unknown.
Therefore this files is incorrectly licenced as {{PD-US}} and {{PD-old}} do not apply. If you can fix it, by all means fix it. If someone else can fix it, please do. Otherwise Yann, @Clindberg: , @Jameslwoodward: , @Hammersoft: or someone else tell me what I'm supposed to do when a file is not licenced correctly, but has been kept? Or explain to me how a 2008 publication date on the source qualifies for {{PD-US}} or an unknown Author can qualify for {{Pd-old}}--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Basically, we do not always require absolute proof of publication. Most works are created to be published, and are published reasonably soon after creation. The precautionary principle is if there is a significant doubt, not simply that there is a theoretical doubt (or possible but unlikely doubt, etc.). There are some indications it was published back at the time, and yes, we make presumptions like that all the time. Deletion can often get ridiculous if we don't. For something that old, for deletion I think there would need to be indications or a likelihood that it was never published until at least 1989. If it came from private family photos or something, that would be such an indication, but we have no such information, and we have some indications to the contrary. The vast majority of works from that era are public domain today; I think there should be some concrete indication as to why this would be an exception before we delete it. True, it is not 100% clear, but we are never 100% sure on most works here (we assume good faith on uploads even though we have no proof whatsoever the uploader has the rights to the images they are uploading and licensing; we shouldn't hold very old works to a higher standard). If the copyright term was purely based on death date it would indeed be murkier, but given the U.S. copyright realities, it is not likely at all that this work is still under copyright. The belief is that it was published before 1923 or at least published before 1989 without following formalities; do you have any information that contradicts that, or is this just because we haven't found concrete proof of a publication? With a modern image which is uploaded, if someone can come up with evidence that contradicts the uploaded license (such as being taken from somewhere on the web) then that changes the assumption of good faith. Likewise here, if someone can come up with evidence that the image was not published before 1923 (or 1989), then that would be reason to discuss it more, and see what the most likely status is (publication 1923 and later probably still means it's PD, but we could change the tag.) PD-US is sometimes used when it's a bit more ambiguous -- probably either PD-1923 or PD-US-not_renewed though it's not really sure which one best applies, but it's extremely likely that at least one of them applies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
"we do not always require absolute proof of publication" since when? Commons:Project scope/Evidence says "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence." All cases doesn't mean ones we guess at. This image offers NO proof of publication AT ALL. The link it to a book printed in 2008.
I have seen and even had a lease a dozen images deleted for this very reason. Commons:Copyright tags says "{{PD-1923}} for works published (not simply created!) before January 1, 1923."
Public domain#Unpublished works even uses this very case as an example of when an image ISN'T allowed. "Actually, that can happen easily with photographs in archives. Remember that "publication" requires the consent of the rights holder (initially the photographer). Many historic photos may thus actually be unpublished works, unless it can be shown that they were published in olden times. Especially items like private letters or family photographs, or photos found in some album, may well be unpublished. There are special exemptions in copyright law for libraries and archives that allow them to reproduce (even for the general public) such works for non-commercial uses, but that does not constitute "publication" unless done with the authorization of the rights holder.
There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to demonstrate that this file was ever published before 2008. These were family photos given to a library archive. They have only been reproduced twice, as far as anyone has found, all after 2008. Unless someone can fix the licences its a copyright violation. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 11:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There is some. The photo exists in at least two different archives, labeled as "paper prints" (i.e. seemingly not originals), donated by two different people who were not immediate family members. How did they get the copies in the first place? The odds that copies were distributed to them while conforming to the "limited publication" rules at the time are extremely remote. If a photo appears to have been privately held by a family and shows up in an archive which received it directly from that family, then yes, that swings the probability around. And yes, we guess at least a little bit at almost all of our licenses here. Even if we have proof of publication, for example, we rarely have full proof that it was not published earlier in a different country, which could dramatically change the country of origin and the copyright rules. I mean, it's possible that this photo was first published in Columbia, but we are never going to be able to 100% prove that it wasn't. We are assuming that the U.S. is the country of origin for the photo since that is where it was taken, and we are assuming it was published at some point before copyright formalities were stopped. Limited publication was publication to a limited class of people, for a limited purpose, and restrictions on further distribution (which should have prevented giving them to archives, or at the least the archives making copies available). If copies were given out without restrictions, that was general publication. Uploaders must provide evidence that proves their case enough to admins and other users. "Own work" isn't remotely proof at all; we just assume that uses are telling the truth and accept the given licenses, unless better information is brought up. There is no such thing as 100% proof -- we make assumptions on nearly every file we have uploaded. In this case, the evidence given points strongly to publication a long long time ago. It's not ironclad, but as long as publication is the most likely situation by far, yes we do often assume that. If there are any indications that a work was kept private, or appears to have been private to a family, then there is really no indication of publication. But there is in this case. Yes, there is always gray area, so different images which may seem like similar situations may well have different results. But in this case, to at least a few of us including the deciding admin, there was enough evidence presented to assume that publication occurred. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't you read? Public domain#Unpublished works uses your example as a very case when an image ISN'T allowed. "There are special exemptions in copyright law for libraries and archives that allow them to reproduce (even for the general public) such works for non-commercial uses, but that does not constitute "publication" unless done with the authorization of the rights holder." Your attempt to justify keeping a copyright image based on the fact that a libraries, even if they made reproductions is TOTALLY false. I think I need to just contact the Widtsoe Collection Collection and let them file a copyright violation. That will get this absolutely copyright image off commons.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@ARTEST4ECHO: You need to keep cool. Carl L. certainly knows much more about copyright than you, so if he tells you this is OK, you should take it that way. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you both don't. I have seen this very issue at least 20 times and every time the image was deleted. You both just want to keep the image so you are attempting to ignore the fact that someone stole it from a copyright source and ignoring a the fact the the copyright holder died 63 year ago. There is absolutely no evidence that this image was published before 1984 let alone before 1923. Wikipedia:Reviewing free images:Common misconceptions dose not allow use to "Assume" that it was pubished.
When Public domain#Unpublished works used this very situation as an example of what NOT to do, and you both ignore it, then you aren't very good administrators. You are ignoring Commons:Licensing, Help:Public domain, {{PD-old}}, Commons:Precautionary principle and even copyright law ("Works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since their creation"- See 17 USC 302}
You are allowing copyrighted images onto commons just because you WANT them here, despite the fact that they don't need to be used. The tags are wrong and you know it.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can read ;-) I am not saying that the archives caused it to be published -- I'm saying it almost had to be published long before it got there. (If something was truly unpublished, and the person donating the work had no rights over it whatsoever, then the fair use exemptions for libraries/archives to make copies may well not apply. Publishing a previously unpublished work is usually the sole province of the copyright holder -- fair use is much more limited in those situations. But that is getting off-topic.) However the donors got their copies originally most likely meant it was distribution at that point. Once a copy was given by the family to someone outside the immediate family without any restrictions on use or further distribution -- that was publication. John A. Widtsoe was not a relative of Joseph F. Smith -- so if he had a copy, then it was most likely published by that point. Or are you seriously suggesting that John A. Widtsoe was the copyright owner (the only way they could file a DMCA notice)? There is another copy here which was part of the papers of Nicholas Groesbeck Morgan (1884-1971) whose heirs donated them after he died; that is a "paper print" again from someone not from Smith's immediate family. How was that obtained? Was Morgan also the copyright holder? The LDS church history library has a copy of the photograph here as well. That could have come from family archives I guess but there is no documentation. How do this many copies exist outside of the immediate family without it having been published? It seems quite reasonable to assume it was distributed within the Mormon community at the time, which would have constituted publication. I have not seen any indication to contradict that assumption. If we have no information at all on a photograph, then it gets hard to assume anything. But when there are fairly strong indications of contemporaneous publication, then yes we do assume that unless evidence can be presented to contradict that. It is a matter of all the evidence at hand. We are not ignoring policy whatsoever. Copyright is never ever 100% certain. If you have evidence that the photo was in fact kept private, or any other significant doubt as to its status (which is what the precautionary principle requires), please bring it up. So far you seem to simply disagree that we have enough evidence of publication -- fine, but others can disagree with you as well. If this photo was published around the time it was taken -- which seems to be the by far most likely situation given the available evidence -- then yes it is public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You keep using words like "it almost had to" and "most likely meant it" and "It seems quite reasonable to assume", “there are fairly strong indications of". None of this is the Evidence that is mandatory for use on commons. We are not allowed to assume anything. Look at just 3 deletion requests here, here, and here. It would seem "quite reasonable to assume" that if the FBI and U.S. goverment says that they own these image and that they are public domain that it "most likely meant it" was Public Domain. However it was decided that due to the Precautionary principle that there was no "Real Evidence" that the FBI actually took the image instead of stealing them. Since there was a sliver of doubt, so the images were deleted. Yann even attempted to close here twice using the almost exact same wording and argument here that you are using to apply PD-1923 to this image and was rejected and the image deleted. Unless evidence (not "most likely" or "reasonable to assume") is supplied that this work is Public Domain then it is NOT Public Domain per Wikipedia:Publication:

As long as a work is not published, it is unpublished.

Commons:Licensing makes it clear that the assumption is that it is unpublished and copyrighted, not the other way around like you are saying.

Your arguing that since people must have copies of this image that it must have been published. This goes against Wikipedia rules and against the very definition of Publication. If the fact that people have copies of an image made it "Publication" then any of a million image that were stolen by people on the internet and posted on Facebook since are now assume that they must have had permission. Copying an image doesn’t prove it was Published. Wikipedia:Common Misconceptions says that for "Publication" to occur

Publication must have had the consent of the author/creator or copyright holder of the work” and “Creation is quite different from publication, which 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.

We have no idea who the author/creator is, we do not know that any of three archives that have this image actually had the consent of the author, nor do we know if the were "Sold". All we know that someone made copies, legal or not. For all we know someone made illegal copies and gave them to his bothers and sisters or other people, making them illegal copies. They have to be made by sale or other transfer of ownership by the copyright holder, not copied made and given away to be "Published". There is no proof that a sale or other transfer of ownership occurred. Additionally, Public domain#Unpublished works clearly states:

There are special exemptions in copyright law for libraries and archives that allow them to reproduce (even for the general public) such works for non-commercial uses, but that does not constitute "publication" unless done with the authorization of the rights holder.

so the fact that three library archives have copies of an image dose not show that a sale or other transfer of ownership occurred as required for publication to occurred. It only proves that someone made a copy.

Furthermore, the Commons:Project scope/Evidence clearly says “In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable license.” Sourcing a 2008 copyrighted journal isn’t “providing appropriate evidence”. The uploader has failed to supply any evidence at all other than a Copyrighted journal from 2008, so he has failed to meet the minimum requirement for upload.

I am saying that you are assuming, and I am saying that this is not enough. Commons:Copyrights say:

You must also verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain. If the original source of publication contains a copyright disclaimer or other indication that the material is free for use, a link to it on the media description page or the article's talk page may satisfy this requirement.

So where is the "original source"? Where is the "Author" where is the verification? Where is the evidence? If you can't answer that we cannot use the image on Commons.

As this image is cited as taken from the Copyrighted Widtsoe Journal, and they claim claim the copyright (correctly or incorrectly) unless the uploader of someone else shows evidence that it was published before 1923 or can identify who the Author was, then none of the tags that are used are appropriate. So to solve this problem I have sent an e-mail to the Staff Member who is listed the Utah State Historical Society webpage (the journal’s copyright holder) who you need to contact to to request permission to use to use their images, as they have instruct. Following Commons:OTRS, I informed them of this images use on Commonms, and requested they send in an e-mail using the Common:OTRS system so we can clear this all up. They will ether give consent using Commons:OTRS, meaning the tags can be appropriately changed, or they will contact the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent at commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org and follow the information I gave them from Commons:Contact_us/Problems/en and file a formal DMCA/OCILLA request. If the latter happens the Utah State Historical Society and Wikimedia Foundation will have work it out and the Wikimedia Foundation will have to decided if the Utah State Historical Society claim is justified or not, and if this image is copyrighted or not, so the Wikimedia Foundation copyright lawyers will have decided if the image is Public Domain or not, and deleted if or not, making your, mine and everyone else opinion irreverent.

I am happy to leave it in there hands, and if they say it's Public Domain, they are the experts and any risk to Wikimedia is on them, so I now consider this discussion moot.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said, just about every license here has some assumptions built into them. Just because there is a theoretical chance that something might not be PD does not mean we automatically delete. Most "evidence" will not be 100% complete, so we will make delete or keep decisions based on what is most likely. It is more a question whether that is a significant chance of it not being PD. Yes, based on the evidence I see, I am making the assumption it was published a long time ago. Just because someone included it in a journal which was otherwise copyrighted does not create a new copyright, nor does that change who the author was. If it is pretty obvious that a copyright claim is wrong (such as the "digital image" copyright claimed in 2003 on one of the links I posted above), then yes we ignore it. If the archive wants to provide any provenance or other information which could inform the decision, that would be most welcome. However, for the archives to have any copyright interest at all in the image, then either Mr. Widstoe or Mr. Morgan would have had to have owned the copyright (and it can't be both), since the archive would only own whatever rights were assigned to them by the donors. It is incredibly unlikely that either person actually owned copyright. The archive now owns the physical copy, but just like if a copy of a book was included in the donation, the archive would have no copyright interest at all in the book itself, nor the photo. I see no reason to believe Mr. Widstoe or Mr. Morgan owned any of the copyright -- they merely had copies. People stick invalid copyright notices on stuff all the time; we do not automatically respect them -- there needs to be a reasonable case they are valid in the first place. You are correct that we have no information on the original source; you are incorrect in stating that means we automatically have to delete. No policy of ours states that -- much of the guidance is about modern works where the rules are quite different. The precautionary principle is the most relevant, but again, that is only for significant doubts, not just theoretical doubts -- there should be something backing up the doubt.
As for publication, you quoted the definition from the 1976 Copyright Act -- and actually only part of it; rental is also publication, as is distributing copies to a group of people for purposes of public display (even if there is no transfer or rental; this was for movies where publication occurs when copies are sent to the distributors which is before the movie is even shown). However, that applies only to acts occurring in 1978 and later. The assumptions on modern images are far, far different for that reason (and also reasons like copyright notice no longer mattering, so modern images are automatically under copyright). Before 1978, there was no definition of publication in copyright law, so the courts had to draw the lines. That resulted in the concept of "limited publication" (which did not affect copyright) and "general publication" (which did). If a work was distributed to a selected group of people and for a limited purpose and without the right of further diffusion, reproduction, distribution etc., then that was limited publication. For example, an author of a manuscript giving copies to an editor to look at, or a publisher to determine if the publisher wanted to print the book, would be limited publication. But if any of those three elements were not there (i.e. if copies were given to anyone who asked or could pay, or there was no limited purpose attached to the copies, or if there were no express or implied restrictions on further distribution) then it was general publication. Giving copies of prints to friends (which would be a selected group), if there was no forbidding of those friends to give out further copies or no specific purpose in mind, could easily still be general publication.
For the deletion requests that you cite, those involved completely different issues. Some of them were claimed to be PD-USGov when that was not the case; as mentioned modern works are virtually always copyrighted, and the fact that the FBI used them does not change that (and no, it is not reasonable to assume that the FBI took such photos). For the bin Laden images, that was something different -- that was more a question of where the works were first published. If that was in Afghanistan, a country with no copyright law or copyright treaties, then it would be PD. However, Afghan authors are allowed to cause a work to be first published in a Berne Convention country, in which case that country becomes the country of origin, and the work would then be protected in Berne Convention countries (which is most of the world). In that case, someone brought up some evidence that the image had been submitted to the Associated Press, which (if that was the first publication) would mean that first publication occurred somewhere other than Afghanistan (or at least simultaneously elsewhere) which would then mean the photo is protected. At that point, there is a significant doubt on the image, so yes I can understand deletion. If someone else brings up evidence of distribution within Afghanistan before that date, it could change the assumptions around again. As with any image here, if further concrete information comes to light, that can change opinions. If there was documentation that the Smith photo in question had been kept private by the family for decades, that could well give further pause, as it would eliminate PD-1923. But with the main information we have being that several copies exist in several places, and they got there via avenues which have nothing to do with the Smith family, those are fairly strong indications of publication a long time ago (which was the most common situation to begin with). It's not proof, no, but there is also no evidence to contradict that. That is the basis of the evidence provided, at which point admins will make their decision. Without a significant doubt, then we will often keep in such situations. You have brought up theoretical doubts only, as far as I can see. I could probably come up with theoretical doubts on almost any image we host. The end result is based on what the most likely situation is. The more modern an image gets, the more likely that copyright still exists (as there are fewer ways for them to become PD), and the more stringent proof is usually desired, as without that there can be significant doubts. Each work is a different situation and could have their own aspects which drive the opinions. If you wanted to bring up other deletion discussions you think bear on the situation, I could comment on those.
In many cases (as noted in Wikipedia:Public domain) archives do not hold the copyright to items in their holdings -- that is almost certainly the case here. If they do not, then neither any copyright they claim nor any permission they send via OTRS would make any difference. On the other hand, any provenance information they can supply may very well help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Senator Jose J. Roy.jpg

File uploaded back in 2013 as "own work" and licensed as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported". Not saying it's not possible the uploader is the original copyright holder, but the age of the photo and the posing of the subject seem to suggest this was a professionally taken for some kind of bio/publicity reason. This was the only edit made by Jonesmart so not sure if any further clarification can be obtained from them. A Google image search doesn't show the image being used anywhere other than Wikipedia or Commons so maybe its a personal photo of some kind, but I'm not sure. Is the image OK as is or is something more needed? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If this photo had not been published before 2013, its copyright has certainly expired in Philippines but it may be still protected in USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Ruslik. Is there a way to verify whether it is still protected in the US? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Free Software screenshots claimed as own work and DRs

Well, I found several Deletion requests for well-known Free Software screenshots opened by . Ellin Beltz (namely this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this).

The problem with the Free software screenshots in Commons is the claiming of own work: The screenshot was made by me in my own computer, by pressing PRT SCRN button or using any application to do that. In most of cases the screenshot contains well-known Free software screenshots (GNOME/KDE/XFCE desktops environments, Nautilus/Thunar, LibreOffice, Chromium, Firefox/Iceweasel, etc), and the list of contributors (in most of cases the copyright holders) is very extensive, and placing one by one here is ridiculous.

Therefore, for Free software taken in the uploader's personal computer, properly named and sourced, should be claimed as own work, and using {{Free screenshot}} with the right Free software license is enough? And for files taken from another website, is {{Free screenshot}} enough? I think that is sourcing these files is dessirable, but not a reason for deletion if the file is properly licensed. Notice that {{GPL}}, {{AGPL}}, {{LGPL}} and {{GFDL}} license tags does not requeire a Copyright notice (only mention the depicted software that belongs, in the description and/or above the license tag), unlike the {{BSD}}, {{MIT}} and others, that require the Author(s) in the copyright notice. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I closed these DRs, except this one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:KDE 4 (kwin-transparency).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Banksy graffiti copyright

 
The copyright status is hanging on by its fingernails!

At en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol/archive1, Nikkimaria has raised issues with the licensing of File:Banksy-ps.jpg. At issue is the copyright for graffiti. UK Freedom of Panorama excludes 2D graphic works, such as murals, however Commons also abides by COM:GRAFFITI which states that we consider graffiti to be ineligible for copyright as its creation was a crime. Complicating the issue is that the artist, Banksy, is very well-known, albeit still pseudononymous, and while no one claims that the work was done with the permission of the building's owner, his works are generally thought to be worth keeping in place.

Could I ask for a volunteer to go to en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol/archive1 and explain what legal arguments there are for why this image is correctly licensed? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done The main point is the illegality of the act turns a mural into grafitti. As this image was painted without permission, it's a grafitti. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The illegality of the act means that the artist may be less likely to pursue a copyright claim - this is covered under the precautionary principle. It doesn't mean that the copyright does not exist. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It ... might. This is probably more true in common law countries (US, UK) than civil law, but... giving them a copyright would allow them to profit by committing a crime, which may not be allowed. That is the theory at least, to the best of my knowledge. There was a case where some aspects of the en:Visual Artists Rights Act were disallowed because a work was installed illegally. Granted, the rights in that case impact the site owner more than the pure economic right of copyright, but... it's not impossible that the copyright may be void. That is more of a balancing act for the courts, and I'm not aware of a direct precedent. In the U.S., it wasn't even a question before 1989 (or at least 1978) because graffiti would almost certainly not have a copyright notice, but I haven't heard of it coming up in a court case since. (There was a case where legal wall murals were put into a book without permission; that was a problem.) The graffiti policy is not simply that an artist is unlikely to sue; it is that there is an arguable chance there would be no infringement even if they tried. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There are several current high-profile cases of graffiti artists suing others for using their artworks without permission, for example against American Eagle, and most legal/academic opinions I've seen have been that graffiti is copyrightable (see for example "Nowhere does it state that, in order for copyright protection to apply, the work can’t be on the side of a building. It’s not even a requirement that the work be legal to create"). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's an interesting question. If a work was created legally (which is what most of the lawsuits you link to contend), then there is no question -- that is not "graffiti" by our definition. The Miami artist settled out of court, so that did not create a precedent. And each case could be different -- in that one, it sounds like he has created a similar work in many places, and the company was using that style of work in their ads. They also insinuated that the company created the work, which could be misappropriation regardless of the copyright. Creating a copy in another country might also be different than taking photographs of the work in public, and it's also possible that graffiti on publicly-owned property might be different than private property. It's hard to say what lines courts could draw. I'm not sure what is the deal with the Miami artist, if the mural was legal or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ho Ho. Banksy must be laughing at this debate as it is not as easy as the above suggests. If the owner of the property does not complain, he is not asking for a 'remedy' under law. Therefore, a mural does not become illegal just because Banksy (or someone else) applied paint to a wall without permission. So the comment regarding graffiti moot. Think of it this way: if you came home and found someone had given your old tatty front door a really nice paint job, do you think the police will say ”we don't care if you're pleased, we are going to prosecute him!” There is nothing on the statute that allows them to do this. In short: Painting a mural on somebody else’s wall, is not automatically illegal in the way that transporting minors across state line for illegal purposes is. --P.g.champion (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes that would still be illegal. If you don't get permission beforehand when altering someone else's property it's vandalism. If the owner does not complain, then it's just (far) less likely to be prosecuted, but for criminal acts (as opposed to civil lawsuits) I believe that's actually the prosecutor's decision, not the owner's. Obviously, without the owner's cooperation it may be hard to prove lack of permission, so prosecutors would not bother to waste their time, but as a technical matter it would still be illegal. The legality is not based on how nice a job you do. Getting away with it might. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Where is their anything on the statute to say that it is illegal? Are you thinking of trespass? Same thing applies.--P.g.champion (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Which statute are you referring to? There are vandalism laws almost everywhere. They are often just misdemeanors, but that's still illegal. Some places have additional laws to combat graffiti in particular; no idea about those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A solution maybe to create a template for known artists that that decline to enforce their copyright. The founding spirit of WP, WC & WF can then acknowledge the creators without committing moral libel by suggesting that all their works are automatically illegal. Think that point ought to be taken on-board.--P.g.champion (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

en:File:Made in chelsea logo.png

The image of a TV show titlecard was uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free. It's being used in a number of articles, but it really only satisfies en:WP:NFC for en:Made in Chelsea. During a discussion of the image at en:WP:NFCR#File:Made in chelsea logo.png someone pointed out that "crown" imagery might be a derivative work of a freely licensed "crown". It was also pointed out that the entire logo might be a derivative of File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scan.jpg, which is licensed as PD. Would it be OK to move the titlecard to Commons if the "crown" imagery is not protected by copyright? Any comments or suggestions would most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If the crown imagery is not protected by copyright, then yes it would be OK to move -- I don't see anything else which would get protection. However... even if it is derivative of File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scan.jpg, that doesn't mean that copyrightable authorship was not added in the new work. It does look like several elements of the original crown were replaced by common star shapes... but the arrangement of those star shapes might well get an additional copyright. Particularly given UK rulings on that kind of thing, I don't think I'd be comfortable with that on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

More trouble with Dutch gov't works

In addition to the logos issue, there's a potential issue with photos taken from rijksoverheid.nl. The copyright page was changed between June and August; the text was "CC0 by default" and is not "CC0 by default, except for photographs". I changed Template:Rijksoverheid and Category:Images from Rijksoverheid.nl to reflect this, but before I noticed the change. I think the text on both should be updated to reflect the change in licensing, since photos uploaded before the change should be safe (?), but I'm not a legal expert and I'd like some suggestions on what the new text should be. Qwertyus (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I just changed the license a bit to reflect the date the license changed. I see now the discussion you started. This has also impact on the reports and documents that are available that contains photos. Not sure if they are aware of that as that are public documents and should be re-usable. I'm not sure what the reason behind this is with the new psi directive in mind --Hannolans (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I guess the text and tables from reports can still be reused, but that won't help Commons much... Qwertyus (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I asked them more background info about this changed text. Will see --Hannolans (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I've got feedback. It's meant as a temporary situation to have time to verify the copyright of some photographs. --Hannolans (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Own work"

I'm concerned this user is uploading images they don't own the copyright to. For example, he's labelled File:BrisbaneCityCouncil1.jpg as "own work". This is the logo of the Brisbane City Council, which clearly isn't his own work. Similarly with File:AnnaBligh1.jpg, in which a Google reverse image search will also reveal it's not likely his work. Fairly new to Commons, so some help would be appreciated. Pinging ChamberlainSpencer. Stickee (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me help you there. I believe File:BrisbaneCityCouncil1.jpg has already been taken care of, with the appropriate delete tag already added. With File:AnnaBligh1.jpg, it seems to be taken from here. The website doesn't seem to display a licensing policy. So the image uploaded is clearly a copyright violation, which meets COM:SPEEDY. So you can go ahead and add Template:Speedydelete with the appropriate reason on the respected page. - Nirinsanity (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Archbishop Curley Notre Dame High School, Entrance.jpg

Hi, I just copied this from the English WP. Any copyright issue? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The US has no FoP for the design on that sign.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Just a query. By "Yes, of course", you mean that there is an issue and the image should be taken down, right? - Nirinsanity (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I created a DR, discussion can continue there. Yann (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

File:GFA Logo.gif

Could this be considered {{PD-textlogo}}? BethNaught (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, certainly. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that clears up my worry about its copyright status. I'll add that template. BethNaught (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Pide with minced meat.jpg

Sorry if I'm doing something wrong here, but I don't edit at the Commons, so I'm unfamiliar with your procedures!

File:Pide with minced meat.jpg appears to be a photograph taken of a menu or a 2D shop display. I was of the impression that photographing a photograph did not create a new copyright and therefore this image - and its derivatives - cannot be released as PD.

I have no idea what to do next. Trey Maturin (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That would be correct. The initial upload does look like it was photographed off a menu like you say. The normal procedure is to use the "Nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar when on the image page, then type in why you think it is not a free image (which you did in your reasoning above). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pide with minced meat.jpg. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sculpture in US from 1940

Carl Milles' fountain sculpture "Meeting of the Waters" was commissioned in 1936 and unveiled in 1940. If "published" then without a copyright notice is it now PD, or do we have to wait another 10 years for life+70 to be able to distribute photographs of the work? Or longer? You'll find lots of photos of other works by Milles on Wikimedia, though perhaps from countries where the law varies. Thanks. --Kbh3rdtalk 03:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If it didn't have a copyright notice, then it is now PD. If it has a copyright notice and was properly filed for renewal, it will be in copyright until 95 years from 1940, or 2036.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Per here the statue is unsigned, so it would seem to be PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks you for the helpful responses! --Kbh3rdtalk 14:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Cathédrale Saint-Marie de Tokyo.jpg

Maniaque Thomas (talk · contribs) (who is likely to be the photographer) uploaded an image of the St. Mary's Cathedral under a CC-BY-SA license but with a watermark on it saying “© All rights reserved - Thomas Maniaque - www.escapade-toxique.com”. This user then owerwrote it with another image of the cathedral with the same watermark. Should it be deleted or kept under different filenames? Einstein2 (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hrm. I do see both photos uploaded to Panoramio a few days before the upload here. Might be higher resolution here too. Don't see them on the named website but could be there. Technically, both photos were released freely and would override the watermark, if the uploader is the copyright owner. The only reason to delete would be if there is a reasonable doubt the uploader is not in fact the author. We do like to have OTRS confirmation for works previously published elsewhere, though they probably are the same person (would someone see them and fake a username here within a couple days just to upload them?), and if the resolution here is bigger than available on panoramio, then they may not have been previously published (in this resolution) either. Oh... it's on flickr too, with the resolution uploaded here, and may have been there for a few months before the upload here. Feels most likely the author was experimenting with different outlets for his photography and so it probably was him, but also may not hurt to contact the author. Some people might well feel that OTRS confirmation is required. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama vs. de minimis for Vinci (Italy)

I have some doubts about these pics shot in Vinci (Leonardo's birthplace) in Italy, where there's no freedom of panorama.

  •  
    Shot by me, Leonarddo's horse by Nina Akamu is small, pretty sure it falls under de minimis.
  •  
    In this case, the Uomo di Vinci by Mario Ceroli is small, so de minimis.
  •  
    Less sure, the Uomo di Vinci by Mario Ceroli is bigger and more visible, de minimis or copyright infringement?
  •  
    Pretty sure it is copyright infringement, the picture focuses on the Uomo di Vinci by Mario Ceroli.
  •  
    The pavement is an artwork by Mimmo Palladino, probable copyright infringement.
  •  
    Same as previous, probable copyright infringement.

Could you help me?--Carnby (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Migrant crisis photos

Can the photos of the European migrant crisis from the Flickr stream of Rebecca Harms uploaded to Commons (last 6 uploads)? They are licensed under CC-BY-SA but I doubt she is the photographer because they seem to be professional photos and Harms can be seen on one of the pictures. One photo is already on Commons: Refugees Budapest Keleti railway station 2015-09-04.jpg. Einstein2 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

She is obviously not a photographer, but the photographer may have still released them under CC-BY-SA. Ruslik (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Template:Kopimi a license template?

I just noticed that some files use {{Kopimi}} as an only license template while the license claims that Kopimi is not a copyright license. When using this template, make sure there's also an actual license on the file. If this is not a license than many files will technically have no license and might get deleted if we can not contact the uploaders. To me it looks like a license akin to {{WTFPL}}, {{Beerware}}, etc. and I would rather just make it an official license. --Jarekt (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

We should not create such custom license. It makes everything more confusing. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Yann, The template was created in 2007, but if it is not a license than what should be done with images that only use this template as "license", like this one. --Jarekt (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's the point. If this template didn't exist, it couldn't be used wrongly. I don't see the point to have dozen of similar pseudo-license templates. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not like those "pseudo-license templates" any mere than you do, but I do not want to be deleting images using them when the author added them thinking that it is a license. --Jarekt (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The statement "Kopimi is not a copyright license" at {{Kopimi}} was only added four days ago. When the tag was created in 2007 it had an embedded "this is not a license tag" statement. It was removed in 2009 and a few days later the template was nominated for deletion. The version of the template without the "this is not a license tag" was kept and it remained that way until recently. I think it was kept under the theory that it is a PD-author style license tag. I came across this template when I was adding machine-readable license information to tags. Even though I personally tend to lean towards deleting this "license" and the files that rely solely upon it, I went ahead and added machine-readable license information to it under the theory that it had already survived a deletion review. If we were to go with the "not a license" interpretation i'd recommend removing the machine-readable license information, re-embedding the "this is not a license tag" into the visible portion of the template, and nominating those files that only use this tag as a license. If that nomination succeeds, maybe we could then delete this tag. —RP88 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I just found Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Kopimi from 6 years ago, when people debated it at length and kept it. --Jarekt (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, see my "nominated for deletion" link above :-) —RP88 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Arciszewski.jpg

File:Arciszewski.jpg was tagged with public domain in Poland as "all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad)". Image was uploaded as "author unknown-anonymous". But in the Polish National Digital Library is present this image (better quality) and 7 other images made in 1944-1945 in London by photographer Datka Czesław. Will be correct public domain tagging of the File:Arciszewski.jpg image? If so, will be possible use thousands of Datka Czesław photographs (from here) in Commons? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The country of origin is generally the country of first publication. If these were published in the UK, then that would be the country of origin and those the rules we would need to use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This image seems fine since it has source where the image was printed. The source lists Polish source, so unless we find earlier publication outside of Poland, than we should assume Poland as country of origin. Other images can be uploaded only when similar proof of publishing is found. --Jarekt (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
If it was published on or after March 1st of 1989, it's still in copyright in the United States, and will get 70 years from 1978.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I am confused. The image meets the conditions of {{PD-Polish}} as far as I can tell, so it should be OK. --Jarekt (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The file provides the printed source "Jerzy Lerski, Emisariusz Jur, Warszawa 1989, wyd. I krajowe, wyd OW "Interim" ISBN 83-85083-00-6, ISBN 83-7043-025-2". Unless there is an evidence that it was published earlier, than to the best of our knowledge that is the first publication. With many other {{PD-Polish}} file we were adding earlier sources if found and occasionally latter sources if they provided more precise description. --Jarekt (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • So we are not sure with the first publication, I guess. And how with over 2,000 images from this fantastic archive? Is the National Digital Archive the first publisher? Who knows? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
As of March 1st, 1989, the US implemented the Berne Convention in full, without the rule of the shorter term. The URAA is irrelevant for anything not published by that date; it would get the full term in the US. I'm not particularly comfortable with some random book published 45 years after the photograph was taken (in London, where it would be still be in copyright) as being taken as the first publication without good evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I got both of you points. I Ok with starting DR. --Jarekt (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Prochlorococcus

Hi, Looking for an image to illustrate en:Prochlorococcus, I found [1] from [2]. The site has a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License, but with a mention "Portions not contributed by visitors are Copyright 2015 Tangient LLC". This is confusing. OK or not? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say they can license their own content -- which would be copyrighted them, and licensed CC-BA-SA-3.0. But content coming from others I don't think they can make a valid license. The image in question is credited as being from the "Structural Biology Labs, Biomedical Cebtre, Uppsala, Sweden", so I would not think that image is licensed. We would need a license from the Swedish lab. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion requests for home made licenses

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files using User:Saffron Blaze/license and similar licenses and help decide what to do with such images. --Jarekt (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I need help to know if the file Montreal_Canadiens.svg from en.wikipedia could be uploaded on Commons. The en:Montreal Canadiens article has it's logo in svg format, but it's loaded at en.wiki locally. I think that the logo is so simple that it could be under Threshold of originality because it's only composed by the letters C and H.

There are lots of commercial logos at Category:With trademark, but there is not a problem because more of they are under Threshold of originality.

I want that somebody confirm or deny that we can upload that logo at Commons. Thanks!, --Elisardojm (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion it is not below threshold of originality. --Jarekt (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In the US, I'm pretty sure that's underneath the threshold of originality, but I don't know about Canada's. The US's threshold is pretty high for anything that's stylized letters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it would be below the U.S. standard. Canada's threshold is lower, but higher than the UK's these days, and not sure. On the other hand, that logo has been essentially the same since 1917 or so, and I think almost exactly the same since 1946 or 1956, so if it existed the copyright is probably gone in Canada anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I don’t know who created the original logo design or when it was first published, but AFAICT it first appeared on team jerseys in late 1916. If it’s considered anonymous, its Canadian copyright would have expired by about 1917 + 75 = 1992 (earlier if published before about 1942, as seems likely: publication in Canada means making copies available to the public). If in fact it can be attributed to the team’s founder, George Kennedy, as one history I found suggests, the expiry would have been in 1922 + 50 = 1972. The current form, with slightly different proportions, thicker outlines, and the closemouthed C, seems to date from the 1950s (as does the full logotype); however, I doubt the differences are significant enough for it to have incurred a new copyright at that time.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Then, what template should I use, Template:PD-textlogo or Template:PD-old? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably both PD-textlogo and {{PD-Canada-anon}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Carl Lindberg, I will do it! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done here. Thanks! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Tatarstan Copyright

The official archive of the Republic of Tatarstan states the following here: 

Copyright
Copyright Department of Foreign Affairs to the President of the Republic of Tatarstan, 1998-2009.
Web-sites "Republic of Tatarstan" (www.tatar.ru) and "President of the Republic of Tatarstan" (www.tatar.ru/president) is designed and supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs     
to the President of the Republic of Tatarstan.
On use of information
All materials posted on the official web server of the Republic of Tatarstan can be re-used in any mass media, on web servers or any other mediums with no content and time  
restrictions.
This permission equally refers to newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television channels, web sites and pages. The only condition applied to reprinting and retransmission is that 
a link to the source page should be provided. To reprint any materials no prior permission of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the President of the Republic of Tatarstan is  
required.

Does this override the RU-copyright laws for say photographs dating from 1980 or even 1950? In essence, the only restriction is to provide a link to the source. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This applies only to the materials which copyright is owned (or managed) by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It does not effect any other copyright. Ruslik (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg question

I would like to copy an image from one of their ebooks to wiki commons. The book was published in 1878, and the image is by the illustrator of the book. The blurb at the end of this ebook seems to indicate that the book can be used by anyone for any purpose. May this image be uploaded to commons, and what reason would I select (the blurb doesn't say anything about "creative commons license"). I think I understand that it is not enough that the book is in the PD, but also that the source I get it from allows copying from it (example: a photograph of an artwork in the PD, would need permission from the photographer). I would provide a link to the book under "source" and the name of the illustrator under "author".--Nyctc7 (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Think I answered my own question, I think it will be ok.--Nyctc7 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

PD-GallicaScan

in English

Hi, There are currently 11,289 files using {{PD-GallicaScan}} as a license. However this is not a license, just an information on the source. I think most of these files are in the public domain, but need a proper license. The wording should be changed, or even better, this template should be deprecated in favor of {{Gallica}}. Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

en français

Bonjour, Il y a actuement 11 289 fichiers qui utilisent {{PD-GallicaScan}} comme licence. Mais ce n'est pas une licence, uniquement une indication sur la source. Je pense que la plupart de ces fichiers sont dans le domaine public, mais il faut leur donner une licence appropriée. Le texte doit être changé, ou mieux, ce modèle doit être abandonné en faveur de {{Gallica}}. Avis ? Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  Agree the id I had to give to {{PD-GallicaScan}} was hard to find out, the one used in {{Gallica}} is much easier. JeanBono (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's sort of a proxy for a PD-France license -- we may not know the exact reason that it is PD, but are relying on the research of the institution. Still, that doesn't mean it is necessarily PD in the US though, so figuring out why would be better. {{PD-LOC}} was deleted/deprecated for similar reasons a long time ago (Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-LOC) -- we decided to require a more specific tag. Same with Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-NARA. But at least in those cases we could replace with the more ambiguous {{PD-US}} if we were not quite sure what the reason was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
{{PD-GallicaScan}} sounds to me like {{PD-Scan}} with a source. It says that scanning of PD documents does not give you any new rights, but it is not a sufficient license by itself. --Jarekt (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Not really. {{PD-Scan}} is equivalent to {{PD-Art-70}}, while {{PD-GallicaScan}} doesn't mention why the work is in the public domain. And {{PD-GallicaScan}} is often used without any parameter, which renders it completely useless. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
PD-Scan is subtly different than PD-Art, but that is off-topic. PD-GallicaScan is basically PD-scan, combined with a source tag, combined with a kind of generic "PD-France" type of tag since the institution does basically confirm that it is PD in France, and we should probably trust that. However, the reason why it is PD in France can have different consequences when it comes to other countries. We do have some tags which encompass several possibilities -- say something like {{PD-Australia}}. In this case, it pretty much means the work is either {{Anonymous-EU}} or {{PD-Old-70}}... it would not be completely out of line for a copyright tag, but we generally have not used those combined tags for European countries. The tag does not speak to the U.S. copyright status of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
In all cases when PD-GallicaScan can be replaced by PD-Art, PD-old-70, PD-old-100, PD-anon-70, or a combination of these, it should be. When it can't be replaced, well, the files should not stay on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

European government works from WW2

Hi, May be only a few people care, but I like to do it right. What's the right US copyright status and license for these works:

Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-EdictGov}} ? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I looked for this, but only found {{PD-US-GovEdict}}. Yann (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleting 200 unused license templates

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Unused license templates. If any templates are still useful than lets talk about them. --Jarekt (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wahlplakate

Panoramafreiheit: Permanent versus zeitweise / Freedom of panorama: permanent vs. temporary

DE In dieser Diskussion soll festgestellt werden, ob Wahlplakate permanente Installationen nach den Regeln der Panoramafreiheit sind und auf Commons hochgeladen werden können.

Zitat Commons:Panoramafreiheit#Permanent_versus_zeitweise: Ob eine Arbeit an einem öffentlichen Ort permanent installiert ist oder nicht, ist keine Frage der tatsächlichen Zeitdauer, sondern eine Frage der Absicht zur Zeit der Aufstellung. Wenn sie mit der Absicht an den Ort verbracht wurde, sie an dem öffentlichen Ort für alle Ewigkeit zu belassen oder wenigstens für die volle natürliche Haltbarkeit der Arbeit, dann gilt das als „permanent“.

EN This discussion shall establish if campaign posters are permanent installations according to the rules of Freedom of Panorama and therefore can be hosted on Commons.

Quote Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Permanent_vs_temporary: Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent".


Background: Túrelio and I have been talking about this for some time and think that we should have an open discussion about this issue.

Thoughts? Ideas? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

MMn. sind Wahlplakate von der Panoramafreiheit abgedeckt. Die Absicht von Wahlplakaten ist es für eine bestimmte Zeit (während einer Wahl) zu werben und werden in der Regel während eines kurzen Zeitraumes nach der Wahl entfernt. Mit dem Ablauf der Wahl ist die natürliche Haltbarkeit eines Wahlplakates abgelaufen und gilt damit als permanent aufgestelltes Werk.

IMHO campaign posters are covered by the freedom of panorama because the intention of such posters is to advertise for a certain time (during an election). These posters are usually removed during a short period of time after the election. With the end of the election, the natural life of an election poster is expired and therefore considered a permanently-positioned work. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hedwig in Washington, did you consider BGHZ 150, 6 - verhüllter Reichstag? --Gnom (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Ja, aber Wahlplakate haben keinen hohen kuenstlerischen Wert. UND werden auch mit weit weniger Schweisse im Angesicht erstellt. Ein Wahlplakat ist eher utilitär als ein Kunstwerk. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Schweiß ist im Urheberrecht (im Gegensatz zum Copyright) vollkommen irrelevant. Wichtig ist, was hinten rauskommt. Zudem sind Fotos in Deutschland und Österreich als Lichtbilder ohne Rücksicht auf die Qualität bereits von UrhG geschützt. Benedictus Levita (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Das ist höchst umstritten:Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, Urheberrechtsgesetz, 5. Auflage 2015, § 59 Rn. 5: "Bleibend angebracht dürften auch Plakate an Plakatwänden oder Litfaßsäulen sein, werden sie am Ende doch überklebt oder bei der Abnahme zerstört." Gegenansicht aber bei Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4. Aufl., § 59 Rn. 16. Benedictus Levita (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Vielleicht unnötig, aber auch hier der Verweis auf den wirklich guten Abschnitt im einschlägigen Artikel der de.wp: Panoramfreiheit: Kriterium bleibend. Ansonsten Zustimmung zu Benedictus Levita: Die Frage ist in auch in der aktuellen Fachliteratur sehr umstritten, daher kann diese Diskussion hier nicht zu einem schwarz/weißen Ergebnis führen. Grüße, Yellowcard (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Ich würde eher dazu neigen das Kriterium "bleiben" bei Plakaten im Allgemeinen und Wahlplakaten im Besonderen nicht als erfüllt anzusehen.
  • Plakate sind schon von ihrer Natur her temporär ausgelegt. D.h. sie werden von vornherein nur für eine bestimmte Zeit in der Öffentlichkeit platziert und nicht, um dort für immer zu bleiben. Ob diese Zeit dann durch eine bewusste Entfernung aus der Öffentlichkeit (die klassischen Mast-Plakate und Aufsteller müssen ja wieder eingesammelt werden), durch Überkleben (an einer Litfaßsäule) oder natürlichen Verfall (bei allem was „vergessen“ wird) endet halte ich dabei eher für sekundär.
  • „Bleibend“ darf man mMn nach nicht allein im Bezug auf die Lebensdauer des Werkes interpretieren, sondern sollte auch die allgemeine Bedeutung diese Begriffs berücksichtigen. Und umgangssprachlich würde wohl niemand etwas, das bestenfalls für ein paar Wochen irgendwo aufgehängt wurde, als „bleibend“ bezeichnen.
  • Außerdem ist das Werk (im Sinne des Urheberrechts) ja strenggenommen nicht identisch mit dem da verwitternden einzelnen Plakat, weil dieses ja selbst nur eine der Reproduktionen des Werkes ist.
Zudem würde ich mich aus der Sicht von Wikimedia/Commons schon aus systemischen Gründen vor einer solch exzessiven Auslegung der Panoramafreiheit zurückschrecken, weil sie eine Haufen Probleme mitsichbringt. Wenn wir das jetzt bei Wahlplakaten zuliesen, wäre es nur eine frage der Zeit bis irgendwer auf die Idee kommt, Kunstwerke von irgendwelchen Ausstellungsplakaten abzuphotographieren oder gar aktiv Panorama-Washing zu betreiben, indem er selbst das gewünschte Werk irgendwo in den öffentlichen Raum kleistert. // Martin K. (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Berechtigte Sorge. Das wird dann wohl nix mit Wahlplakaten auf Commons. Vielen Dank an alle fuer Eure Meinung und Hilfe!! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What to do with verified Public Domain

Hi, I have access to some full scans of a set of books that I would like to upload to Commons. They have been made available by another organization devoted to Open Content that operates under US copyright law, and whose lawyer has verified Public Domain status.

The set of books was published in London, 1929-1934. The copyright information I received about them is as follows:

I can't share the whole legal memo, but I can share the rationale. The works were published in the UK first in the 1930s, so they're subject to the British copyright act of 1911. That law states that the copyright is the lifetime of the FIRST author plus 50 years. This was extended to 70 years in 1996, but only for new works and works protected elsewhere in the EU. It would have already been in the public domain in 1996 based on the earlier law, and would not have been protected elsewhere, so the extension never applied. When the US passed the URAA, it also was not eligible for copyright extension because it was not under copyright in the source country (the UK). Therefore, Public Domain here as well.

My questions at Commons are these:

  • First of all, can this set of scans be uploaded here (even though the books were published after 1923)?
  • Secondly, if they can be uploaded, then how should they be tagged? Neither the regular PD-US tag (for books published before 1923), nor the PD-70 tag, seems appropriate in this case. I'd much rather document and tag them correctly from the start when I first upload them, rather than have to engage in discussions about their status.

What do people suggest for how should the copyright information be documented in this case? Dovi (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-1996}} maybe? I'm not an expert on these matters. -- Shudde (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure the analysis was correct. The UK copyright was restored to any work still protected anywhere in the EEA -- and they generally were protected to 70 years past death in many of them (in Spain, it was 80 years past death). We generally have assumed that the restorations therefore applied to basically all works, since they were all pretty much protected somewhere in the EEA. This seems to be confirmed by copyright charts which have been made such as http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/pdfs/copyrightflowchart.pdf , which really don't take into account works which had expired before the EU restorations -- the term is always 70pma for the UK (other than Crown Copyright and anonymous works, and some technicalities with works which were still unpublished when the 1988 Act went into effect). While you are right about the 1911 Act (unless another author lived more than 50 years after the death of the first, which I assume is not the case), I think those terms have been completely superseded by the newer 70pma terms (and protection elsewhere in the EU/EEA was often based on the last-surviving author, even back then). Worse, because the UK restorations took effect the same day as the URAA, the new terms would have been used by the URAA to restore the works in the US as well.
For PD books, yes they can be uploaded. This is usually done in .djvu format (sometimes PDF), and Wikisource would be used to edit the text itself. But they have to be PD in both the country of origin, and the US. For the UK, as mentioned, we don't believe a valid tag less than 70pma exists (other than anonymous works), so it would have to conform to either {{PD-Old-70}} or {{PD-UK-unknown}}. For the US, if something expired before the URAA, we assume it was published without notice or not renewed, and the {{PD-1996}} tag can be used. Or if a work was simultaneously (within 30 days) also published in the US, then it was invalid for URAA restoration ({{PD-URAA-Simul}}). However, if a work did have a valid copyright notice, and it was also renewed in the US, then the URAA would not matter -- it never left US copyright. In this case though, it sounds like it was restored (if needed) to a US term of 95 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Files from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (released as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike)

There have been over 80,000 high quality illustrations using the BHL Flickrstream filtering for a non-NC license, at the same time pulling detailed information about the source book from the BHL archives. The Flickrstream has around a further 15,000 images which are marked with a Non-Commercial restriction. I am unsure why, all the books I have examined seem to be public domain.

Could a few more eyes be cast over Category:Files from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (released as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike)? I have started an upload run for these images, strictly filtering so that only books dating from the 19th Century or earlier are being uploaded. Some of these may be "duplicates" but are probably scans of the same illustration from different copies of the book, for images as old as this they are probably worth keeping on Commons due to the future value for digital enhancement. If this seems successful, I will go back and revisit the filter, possibly extending the date to 1923 or deciding if more complex checks are needed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Just was wondering if the following files are acceptable for Commons. They are all some sort of coat of arms and I understand that some of the elements of a COA are considered free per COM:Coat of Arms. No sourcing is provided for any the images since they are claimed as "own work", but these images do not appear to be freely drawn recreations and seem more like COM:Coat of Arms#Coat of Arms "found on the internet".

Would appreciate if someone could take a look and check if they are OK. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright of a photo of a 3D copy made in France and taken in France

A coprght question has come up on English Wikipedia about a WC image that I have never come across before, so I am re- posting it here in order to get clarification Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Lol_key_escrow.jpg.

File:Lol key escrow.jpg has a copyright notice claiming it is a work of the US Government, but it is not. It is by github user Xyl2k. I think the person who attached the copyright notice is confused because the photo depicts something that is the work of the US Government. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

From what I can find out, you appear to be right. He may be happy to help you correct matters with the right CC license. Thanks for pointing it out. Would you like to contact him or shall I try?--Aspro (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: Have sent off email to whom I think authored this image. Will come back with any news.--Aspro (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have much experience with either copyright issues or Wikimedia. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply from Xylito: 

“Hello,
Yes i'm the owner of this image, i took it, it's not from the U.S gov.
But i'm not really familliar with Wikipedia, can you make the change to attribut the image to 'Steven K' or just 'Xylitol' ?
Related to the image right i really don't know, the files presented are duplicates of real-world objects which i don't have the    rights to.
That why i don't have applied a license yet to the 3D files, as i don't know which license can apply in such case.”

He is situated in Frace too, so I don't know if the French 'freedom of panorama' issue complicates this. Can someone familiar with French copyright give their views. My gut reaction is that as this was first uploaded to WC, this correction would be better off handled there.--Aspro (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC) green text

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to deal with this effectively?--Aspro (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

With regards to File:Lol_key_escrow.jpg, please let me know if I summarize the situation correctly:
  1. The TSA mandates that certain locks be keyed to open with master keys under their control.
  2. We don't know who designed the master keys (they might be a U.S. government work, but could easily be the creation of a contractor).
  3. The Washington Post published some photos of the secret master keys.
  4. Steven K / Xylitol / Xyl2k created some CAD drawings based on the leaked photos.
  5. He 3D printed his versions of the keys.
  6. He took a photo of his 3D printed keys.
For what follows I am going to assume that is an accurate summary. If the original master keys are protected by copyright then in order to use the photo we'd need permission from the keys' copyright owner (since the photo is a derivative work of the keys). However, in the U.S. keys are utilitiarian objects and as such are not eligible for copyright protection (this may not be the case for keys/locks incorporating software) In the U.S. mechanical keys and locks are instead protected by patents, but that is a non-copyright restriction. French copyright law is not as generous in this area as U.S. copyright law, but in my opinion keys are also not eligible for copyright protection in France. As such we can keep File:Lol_key_escrow.jpg so long as someone contacts "Steven K" and asks him to license the photo under a free license (such as CC-BY-4.0). Follow the procedures at COM:OTRS. —RP88 (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The creator has now been emailed to request him to email in a OTRS. He is not familiar with neither WC nor WP so all we can now do is wait. In the mean time, should a tag be put on this image, so that it gets deleted if there is no reply? Don't ask me to suggest one because wherever I look on WP there are tags of every description all over the place. I'm waiting to see a tag that says “Note: this article has a tag at the top” & a tag that announces “ There appears to be no tags on this article yet, so one must be added as a matter of urgency” ect. --Aspro (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Good summary. Thank you for that for I know nothing about French Copyright. It was Item 2 that caused me the most confusion. It is only the manufacturer of the lock that can design the master key ( I would have thought). So the reproduced keys in themselves may contravene patent laws -if they where offered for sale- but the photos infringe nothing. So, if it can be agreed that in this instance CC-BY-4.0 is suitable (and now, I can't see why not) that solves it. As this sort of issue is bound to arise again what do you think I need to do to add to the WC guidelines?--Aspro (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
OTRS has been sent in by author. He didn't indicate to me which name he preferred so I'll make changes for now calling him Steven K.--Aspro (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a utilitarian object, not a work of art. So no copyright IMO, FoP doesn't matter here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket has been received (Template:OTRS ticket) and I am the volunteer processing it. His statement of ownership is the standard one, and he is releasing the image under CC-BY-SA 4.0. I have marked the image accordingly. However, there is still a slight problem: the license as shown on the original github site, https://github.com/Xyl2k/TSA-Travel-Sentry-master-keys , still indicates that the license is CC-BY-NC, which is in conflict with the terms under which he has released the image to Commons. I have notified him of this issue and asked him to change the license as it appears on github so that it matches the one as now shown on Commons. KDS4444 (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@KDS4444: It isn't necessary for the licenses to match so long as you are confident you are communicating with the author of the site. It's totally valid for an author to release a work under multiple licenses, see Commons:Multi-licensing. Commons has lots of files that are distributed as part of a non-free collection elsewhere but via OTRS permission are freely licensed on Commons. In this case his digital CAD files used to created the 3D model are only available under the CC-BY-NC 3.0 license (since they aren't part of the release via OTRS), but re-users of his photo have a choice of either getting it under CC-BY-SA 4.0 from Commons or under CC-BY-NC 3.0 from Github. —RP88 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this site a valid source for public domain files?

The website wpclipart.com is a collection of public domain files. Or, at least, it claims to be.

It' contents are not user-provided. The whole collection is a one man's work.

While I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of the site's maintainer, I do have a problem with the fact that he never cites where he got the images from, nor what makes each image public domain. He just claims they are all public domain images.

We have a lot of images from wpclipart.com right now. Can we really use photos like this or this without proper copyright information? --Damiens.rf 19:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The second one is probably not OK. DR created. So I would say, for cliparts, may be. For pictures of famous people illegally reposted there, certainly not. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
We already had this discussion a few months back: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/07#Is wpclipart.com a valid source for public domain files?. Yann (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Simple enough?

Hi, Is this logo simple enough to be uploaded on Commons with {{PD-textlogo}}? Regards, Yann (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

How to find photos through Wikimedia Commons

I have some photos I found on Google images but don't know what their source is. How can I use wikimedia Commons to upload the images I have & find out who their original source is?

Never, ever upload photos of unknown origin. --Magnus (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
If one installs (say) ExifTool by Phil Harvey one can click on the google image to see it it has any provenance attached to it. If so, do what other WP editors do and find out if we can obtain permission to add it to Wikimedia Commons (Exif forensics is easier to do if you are running Linux, not only because of all the free tools but Apple and Microsoft don't like computer owners using their operating systems to do what the owners want to do on the machines that they have paid for and own. Linux lets the owners do what they want.). --Aspro (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Whale related images

Hey guys, the following images have been noticed to contain unknown copyright information or a dead link. If you can please help me on this, I would much appreciate it.

  • File:Sperm_whale_skeleton_labelled.jpg
this is tagged as CC and sourced to the FWS, but is derived from a file that is tagged PD-self, which is itself derived from a file tagged PD-old. What is the correct source and licensing?
  • File:GreenlandWhaleLyd3.jpg
needs a US PD tag, and what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Sperm_whale_drawing_with_skeleton.jpg
is sourced to two PD-old images lacking US PD tags
  • File:Polar_Bear_ANWR_10.jpg
source links are dead
  • File:Whale_Fishing_Fac_simile_of_a_Woodcut_in_the_Cosmographie_Universelle_of_Thevet_in_folio_Paris_1574.png
needs a US PD tag
  • File:International_Whaling_Commission_members.svg
link is dead
  • File:Chapiteau_Mozac_Jonas_1.JPG
since France does not have freedom of panorama, a PD tag is needed for the artwork itself as well as the current photo licensing tag
  • File:Oswald_Brierly_-_Whalers_off_Twofold_Bay,_New_South_Wales,_1867.jpg
source link is dead

Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Sperm_whale_skeleton_labelled.jpg
File:GreenlandWhaleLyd3.jpg
File:Sperm_whale_drawing_with_skeleton.jpg
Appear to be from an 1894 or so British publication. The author is listed as the editor of that volume, who died in 1915, but that's probably not right. The volume lists a number of illustrators, most of whom died more than 70 years ago, but they all appear to be the ones who did the colored plates in the volume -- not the simpler engravings like this one. So probably {{PD-UK-unknown}} is correct, along with PD-1923. The date of death of the author is usually irrelevant to US copyright status.
File:Polar_Bear_ANWR_10.jpg
Source links going dead happen all the time, and don't mean anything. It would be good to have a license review on this one though so that it's documented. It's not too hard, given the existing source link, to find http://www.naturespicsonline.com/copyright .
File:Whale_Fishing_Fac_simile_of_a_Woodcut_in_the_Cosmographie_Universelle_of_Thevet_in_folio_Paris_1574.png
Being published in 1574 pretty safely means it was published before 1923.
File:International_Whaling_Commission_members.svg
The copyright source information is not a dead link. The source of the factual information is, but that is not related to copyright, and is I'm sure easily verifiable elsewhere.
File:Chapiteau_Mozac_Jonas_1.JPG
12th century sculpture. Some things are obvious enough to not require excessively formal tags. The copyright is for the photograph only.
File:Oswald_Brierly_-_Whalers_off_Twofold_Bay,_New_South_Wales,_1867.jpg
Source link being dead is irrelevant to copyright.
Hope this helps... Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Carl. FWIW, I changed the licence for File:Whale Fishing Fac simile of a Woodcut in the Cosmographie Universelle of Thevet in folio Paris 1574.png to PD-art-100 which includes public domain in the US. De728631 (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Was that taken with a camera? Generally, PD-Art is for copies made by camera from a distance, where as {{PD-scan}} is for scanned items (though not often applied; would be good for situations where an entity claims copyright over the "digitization"). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point. PD-scan should be better. Going to adjust that. I don't think we need it for Gutenberg files but you never know. De728631 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the image File:Chapiteau_Mozac_Jonas_1.JPG in compliance with freedom of panorama copyright laws of France? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that the sculpture is 800 or 900 years old, copyright has expired, so yes. Additional tags really aren't needed for stuff that old. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I resolved that. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The image File:Polar_Bear_ANWR_10.jpg does not direct to the correct page where that specific image is found. Where is it from? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there was an Arctic National Wildlife Refuge gallery when this image was uploaded (can be seen in the January 2008 versions of the site in the Internet Archive) but the gallery is no longer easily found on the site. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Maximilian83

Can someone please start a mass DR for all files in Special:ListFiles/Maximilian83? The files are tagged as "own work" from 2015 which definitely is wrong as the painter died in 1982 (cf [3]). If the uploader cannot provide a permission they have to be deleted IMHO. --2A02:810D:27C0:5CC:11B9:3832:E862:C16C 14:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

By now they have already been tagged as missing source information. I think this should be sufficient. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Request in exmining copyright status

Hi,

There is a Tri-lingual Sanskrit-Marathi-Graman book Sukabahattari (शुक बहात्तरी) on this archive.org link German Author seems to be w:de:Richard Schmidt (Indologe) (* 29. Januar 1866 in Aschersleben; † 15. November 1939 in Münster/Westfalen).

Undersigned kindly requests you to exmine copyright aspects to upload on wikimedia commons and upload the same if it is ok.

If we get any Marathi language transcriptor volunteers for the book on mr-wikisource then we will exmine if the book or part there-of can be used for Wikibooks Marathi to German learning lessons.


Thanks and regards Mahitgar (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Would be {{PD-old-70}} for Germany, and PD-1923 for the US. Using the tag {{PD-old-auto-1923}} with a parameter of 1939 (i.e. {{PD-old-auto-1923|1939}} ) is probably the best. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Siliguri at night looking awesome.jpg

Could someone take a look at this file uploaded by User:Rimitaisback. I came across it while trying to organize files under Category:Siliguri and I'm suspicious it may have been grabbed from another web site and uploaded here. The image file is fairly low-res, watermarked and has little EXIF info. Using Google image search I found another copy at http://www.touristlink.com/india/siliguri/photos.html without the watermark (Copies of a few other photos uploaded to Commons by the same user are on that page as well). There are also copies of this same image on several other websites as well, some of which have been obviously cropped to remove the watermark. (The watermark text just gives the name of the place, it is not a copyright notice). Maybe I'm being over suspicious - but something doesn't seem quite right. Christopher Fynn (talk)) 21:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Tough call. The source image you found is actually just a version where they cropped out the watermark (a tiny bit is still visible bottom left). It's a bit higher resolution, but it may have been blown up a bit before being used on that site -- not sure. If not, there is source image for both of them somewhere. The image dates on that site are after the upload to Commons. A couple of the other images uploaded by that user around the same time seem OK -- don't see those elsewhere on the Internet at an earlier date or higher resolution. This one does seem suspicious, though it does have a cell phone EXIF so may not have been high resolution to begin with. I have not found an earlier source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Polar_Bear_ANWR_10.jpg

The image File:Polar_Bear_ANWR_10.jpg does not provide a link to the original photo. Where is this image actually from? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It is from the link provided at the file page which was apparently working when the image was uploaded. It is also obvious that the image comes from the polar bear photo set that is still available. Apparently this one image was removed from the original website but that doesn't matter. The Creative Commons license cannot be revoked and as long as we have the original source of publication that's fine. De728631 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
There was an Arctic National Wildlife Refuge gallery on the site in late 2007 and early 2008 (see here) but it seems to have not lasted much longer. Given the title, this was likely from that set. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for digging this out, Carl. I had tried to find something through the Wayback Machine but didn't get any results. I agree that the image is most likely from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge gallery. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

File:PCRM logo.png

This file was mistaged with {{Own}} and {{PD-self}} by uploader, and now it was taged with {{No permission}} and is close to be deleted, though it looks for me too simple and I think it can be saved under one of these licenses {{PD-textlogo}}/{{PD-ineligible}}, or not? --XXN, 22:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done It's below com:TOO. I changed the license accordingly--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Aeropuerto internacional ignacio agramonte camaguey.jpg

This file uploaded to www.ecured.cu in 22.9.2011. According to the same page the source (Fuente=source?) was www.radionuevitas.icrt.cu. It should be deleted off course, but see www.dailymail.co. They use the file and credit wikipedia (© Wikipedia). Should we notify dailymail? The file in commons since April 2012. -- Geagea (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's the DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aeropuerto internacional ignacio agramonte camaguey.jpg --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
No doubt that it should be deleted. I'm asking about our responsibility to users that use our file and credit us. -- Geagea (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking for opinions on the logo for Historic England, which can be seen at en:File:Historic England logo.jpg where it is listed as non-free. It seems to me that the logo might be eligible for relicensing as {{PD-ineligible}} and trans-wiki here because it's fairly simple, but I was hoping to get some other opinions before changing the license. Kelly (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The threshold for originality is fairly low in the UK, and they also have other legal aspects like "sweat of the brow". So while it it may not be copyrightable in the US, the logo is probably non-free in the UK. De728631 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree that it's not free under UK law.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-Ugglan

The template claims "This image was first published in the 1st (1876–1899), 2nd (1904–1926) or 3rd (1923–1937) edition of Nordisk familjebok. The copyrights for that book have expired and this image is in the public domain." I do not question validity of the template, but does anyone know why copyrights have expired? Is it {{Pd-old-70}} or some Swedish Law? --Jarekt (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-NTBB}} is another example of a license that claims that "The copyrights [] have expired and this image is in the public domain." without saying why. --Jarekt (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The assumption is that the material in Nordisk familjebok is anonymous content published more than 70 years ago and thus in the public domain in Sweden. I'm not sure if it is correct that all material is anonymous, but most content seems to be anonymous. Some content is also covered by {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, so that content is fine even if not anonymous. The template is essentially a dupe of {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. Some of the content is unfree outside Sweden, for example in Spain and the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Also:

Eligible to transfer from Wikipedia?

Greetings: I wish a clarification for an image which may be able to be transferred from Wikipedia [4] by Gabriel Moulin (1872-1945) who died 70 years ago. My concern is that Moulin Studios claims copyright to all images of Moulin [5] are claimed copyright on that website. Any help? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

In the US, the copyright term depends on the date of first publication with a heap of complicated 'if'-clauses. If the photo was published without a copyright notice, it should be free. If it was published without a copyright notice but was registered with the Copyright Office within five years, the relevant term is 70 years after the death of the author, i.e. it becomes free on 1 January 2016 because the copyright term always ends at the end of the last applicable year. So does Moulin Studios claim copyright for this particular photo? The only galleries I can see there are about American National Parks and the 1915 Panamerica Fair, but I can't find anything from around 1928 when the Patigian photo was taken.
And if it was actually published with a copyright notice but the copyright was not renewed, then the image is also free. As you can see this isn't exactly a trivial question to determine. De728631 (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Instead of viewing it as a heap of complicated 'if'-clauses, remember that if something was published before 1923 or more than 95 years ago, it's in the public domain. Then get into the exceptions for more recent works only if you need to. The only time the registered in five years part matters is 1978-1988, where all works that didn't immediately fall into the public domain got life+70. When in doubt, check the Hirtle chart.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, if a work first published between 1978-88 was published with notice or with registration within 5 years, the copyright expires at the earliest on 1 January 2048, even if this is later than 70 years after the death of the author. However, there's probably no reason to believe that the work was first published at that point. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's probably PD. It's not good enough to call it a newspaper clipping; we're really need to know where in which newspaper it was published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

German meals

This article suggests that meals may be copyrighted and that photographers who wish to take photos of meals need to obtain permission from the chef. The Swedish article states that there has been 'an article' in German newspaper Die Welt stating that a meal may be copyrighted, and the Swedish article also states that 'a federal court' has stated that copyright shall protect 'arranged food on a plate'. I don't know whether the Swedish article has got everything right. The article states that the UK only has non-commercial FOP, so the journalist might have got something wrong about Germany too.

Does anyone know anything more about this? At first I would have thought that this is nonsense, but considering that French courts have ruled that France doesn't have freedom of panorama for furniture, I'm not sure what stupid things German lawmakers might come up with. Is this about normal food, or is it about some exceptionally beautiful food arrangement? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We had short discussions about this issue already a month ago:
--Túrelio (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

reddit user gives permission to use his photo, but I don't know how to license/tag it?

A reddit user gave me permission to use this photo he took, but he uploaded it to Imgur, and there doesn't appear to be any inherent copyright information. I'm not sure how to tag this photo without it getting deleted.

Comment thread with permission: [6] Buffaboy (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Just saying «Yes you can use the photos.» is not enough. While I’m fairly sure that a permalink to a Reddit post would suffice as evidence of permission, the licensing author must state instead something like «Yes you can use this photo [permalink] according to this license [link].» The latter should link to one of the options listed in COM:L. (And good luck with the rehaul of en:Buffalo, New York!) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: He gave permission, but would like a CC-BY-NC license used so nobody can make money off of it. Does this mean it can't be used (which would be unfortunate because I can't find any other photos like his freely available), or is there another way? Buffaboy (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons doesn’t accept non-commercial licenses; you see, this site is not only for centralized storage and curation of media items to be used in WMF projects (like the English Wikipedia), which are non-commercial; it is also a repository of free media for anyone’s re-use. Some projects, incl. English Wikipedia, do enable local hosting of media items with more restricted licences, up to actually copyright protected ones, but usually only for subjects about which a free alternative is impossible — which is not the case of a Buffalo pano. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The non-commercial clause would also forbid selling e.g. printed copies of Wikipedia pages, and such use must be allowed. The en-wp hosting is not for images with a free enough licence for Wikipedia (for that, the criteria are the same as for Commons), but for images for which fair use can be claimed, regardless of licence (and when free photos could be available, as Tuvalkin says, by policy WMF does not allow non-free fair use images). --10:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Alpha Kappa Omicron Crest.JPG

Crest of a sorority uploaded as "own work". Uploader of the image may be a member of the sorority based upon this Wikipedia Teahouse thread and the source of the image appears to be this official website. I'm assuming the sorority is the copyright holder of the image, but it's not clear if they have given explicit permission for it to be freely used. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The sorority would be the copyright holder if this were work for hire. I doubt this. More likely a member created the crest and therefore is the copyright holder. Ruslik (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
OK Ruslik. Is OTRS permission needed in either case? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Ruslik (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NYCGov

I have nominated this template for deletion, as there appears to be nothing substantive to the PD claims that it makes. People aware of the situation are invited to provide relevant comments. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted in Metadata

Hi, I noticed that a new image used on English Wikipedia had "Copyrighted" in the Metadata (File:Great rufous woodcreeper.jpg) the description also made me think it was taken from a website directly. So I tagged it and 4 others of possible copyright issue. I then tried to find on the website and could not find the images so thought it probably really was the author uploading. I was going to update the pages to say probably not taken from the website, but question if the Metadata still saying "Copyrighted" was an issue? However I then found they had removed all the copyright notices and added "The picture is my own work!" on the talk pages.

I would actual like to see the image kept as Andreas Trepte/Merops is a good photographer and has uploaded some features pictures. However I wouldn't want this Metadata issue to be found later and all the images (and future ones with the same issue) removed and thus a lot of articles across multiple language Wikipedias degraded due to there loss.

So is the Meatadata saying the image is "Copyrighted" an issue?

Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No. It's perfectly fine for someone to later license a work which had previously been all rights reserved. As long as the license is legitimate, then it will override the earlier terms. The key is making sure the license is legitimate, i.e. does the image look like it was copied here by someone other than the copyright owner and given a fake license (if previously published, we would need COM:OTRS to verify that authorization if it is legitimate). Secondly, even if something is freely licensed it *is* still copyrighted -- that copyright is being used to enforce the terms of the license, really. So it's not a contradiction at all to be both licensed and still have a copyright notice. CC-BY etc. terms even say that copyright notices must be preserved intact -- they are absolutely still valid. Something which is fully PD worldwide probably shouldn't have a "Copyrighted" metadata, but there are often bogus and/or mistaken claims of such, so that can happen too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Good news. Thanks. KylieTastic (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of West Africa ― Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).jpg

Claimed as "own work", but the quality of the jpeg makes it seem as if this was not created by the uploader. FWIW, the uploader has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts, so I'm not sure if they can clarify this. The flag imagery may be simple enough to not be protected by copyright, but I'm not sure about the logo on the flag since it is what is used on the official website of the ECOWAS Parliament. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure looks like it was taken from somewhere. I have not been able to identify it -- all versions on Google images probably came from here, not the other way around. On the other hand, the central emblem (while a bit different than the one on the current ECOWAS web page) is directly copied from elsewhere (for example http://web.archive.org/web/20110807162949/http://www.cmscedeao.org/ ). And yes, that is copyrightable. Secondly, all pictures I can find of the ECOWAS flag (not that there are many) show their circular emblem on a white background, so I'm not sure this image is even accurate as a flag graphic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Carl Lindberg. What, if anything, should be done then? Tag it with {{No permission since}}? As stated above, the uploader has been indef'ed so I'm not sure if they even will see any notification left on their user talk. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd just start a regular DR to see what others think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Tagged with "No permission". Yann (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr photo

This IP user over at English Wikipedia has brought up a complaint with the image here:

Please see his complaint at DIFF.

Perhaps someone with image licensing expertise could provide an explanation to this individual?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see the point to replying to such questions. All information is available at File:Martin Luther King Jr NYWTS.jpg#Licensing. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The user seems unable to understand, per DIFF. I really think an explanation from someone other than myself would be most helpful. Please? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Not sure where you want the reply, but... the Library of Congress has a rights page on the collection. Any rights for photographs in that collection which belonged to the New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper were transferred to the Library of Congress, which released them to the public domain. The collection has many photos of unknown provenance, so the copyright status of those cannot be determined. Per the rights page: A small portion of the photographs were taken by NYWT&S staff photographers, and are in the public domain per the instrument of gift. These photos can be recognized by such stamps as "World-Telegram photo" or "World-Telegram photo by Ed Palumbo." In other words, images marked as staff photographs are in the public domain. The MLK image does indeed indicate that it was a staff photographer -- it is marked World Telegram & Sun photo by Dick DeMarsico and (in the Notes section) NYWT&S staff photograph. That completely conforms to the licensing statement (Ed Polumbo was just one example of a staff photographer; Dick Demarsico is another). So yes, that photo is in the public domain per the terms of that gift. The Library of Congress uses the phrase "No known copyright restrictions" on all their pages to indicate the same thing that we call "public domain", as it is a more accurate description. Commons trades heavily on the copyright status in particular (sometimes beyond all seeming logic), and we use "public domain" to mean "no copyright", and not a broader sense of no restrictions at all (like trademark or publicity or privacy) which is sometimes understood by "public domain". That photo is fine from a copyright perspective.
It looks like this was started by deleting (from Commons) a photo from a Texas police department on a case. This is part of the issue with the term "public domain" -- it gets easily confused. Since that photo came from the police department, it is what is called "public record", and the public therefore has wide rights to use it -- however, it does not have all of the rights encompassed by copyright (and in particular, not all the rights needed to make a work so-called "free"). There are a couple of states -- California and Florida -- where courts have ruled that the state laws or constitutions on public records have basically defeated copyright protection in most cases, but for the most part works by state or local governments are still copyrighted even if public records. Thus, the deletion from Commons was (unfortunately) proper unless we get a copyright license from the government entity. The "public record" and "public information" part means that there is very broad fair use rights, but it does not mean the copyright is gone (what we call "public domain") or licensed enough. There is often confusion on the terms, but they are not the same thing.
That said, I'm not sure why the photo can't be uploaded to en-wiki and used on the article as fair use. It looks like the fair use criteria is being used to say it's not necessary, but ... that seems like exactly the type of image why you have fair use exceptions on Wikipedia (and Wikinews, etc.) I would definitely hope the image is allowed as fair use there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this detailed and helpful explanation. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Astronomy - SDSS pictures

I'd like to know if pictures from Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) can be uploaded to Commons. Their image use policy is here:

Any SDSS image on the SDSS Web site may be downloaded, linked to, or otherwise used for non-commercial purposes, provided that you agree to the following conditions:

You must maintain the image credits. Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Your use of the image cannot be construed as an endorsement of any product or service If the image is to be used on a Web page, we also ask as a courtesy that you provide a link back to our site at http://www.sdss.org.

SDSS Images may be used in commercial publications, or for other commercial purposes, only with the explicit approval of the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC). Requests for such use should be directed to the ARC Corporate Office via ARC’s Business Manager

I noticed we have some SDSS pictures already uploaded, but AFAIR few years ago some SDSS pictures were deleted from Commons due to image use policy. I don't know if anything changed about this during recent years, and I have no idea about all these copyrights or policies, so that's why I'm asking. SDSS has a big database of very good quality pictures, for many deep sky objects they are best available ever. It would be really great to use them on wiki but I don't want to upload anything before I will be 100% sure that they won't be deleted. Pikador (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

By those terms of use, no they cannot be uploaded. If images have been falsely added with a PD-USGov-NASA or other license, they should be deleted. These have been deleted in the past (Commons:Deletion requests/All DSS2 Images from wikisky among others).
DSS2 and SDSS are two different surveys. Pikador (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, but similar issue. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikisky.org-NGC16-SDSS.gif and several others have deleted Sloan survey images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-HK-PR

Hi, More opinions needed please. Yann (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Is Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/09/Category:Danse_de_la_fontaine_émergente the best way to handle a category of images that have copyright issues, or should I nominate the images themselves for deletion? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You should nominate the images themselves. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Public domain photo used in a Featured List Candidate

Two years ago I extracted this photo from a Hindawi article (PDF). "This article is in the public domain" per the the description page.

It is used in a list that is currently a FLC on enwp. I'd appreciate if someone could confirm that the image is redistributable, and/or help me fix it. I cannot remember why I put the photo under CC-BY (I think it's allowable to re-license PD as CC, but please correct me if I'm wrong); perhaps because that's how it was done on one of the images in Category:Media from Hindawi. I'd actually prefer a PD license, but CC-BY works as well. Thank you, jonkerz ♠talk 17:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not really allowable to re-license PD as CC, unless you are adding some additional copyrightable content and are adding a license for that. A CC license cannot be applied by anyone except the copyright owner (and with a PD work, there is no owner). As it happens, this page says that all articles published in that magazine before 1989 are public domain, strongly indicating that they were published without a copyright notice. Since this is from a 1967 article, the license should be {{PD-US-no notice}} it would seem. This is mentioned at the Category:Media from Psyche category. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  Done Yann (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Carl Lindberg and Yann! jonkerz ♠talk 14:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:INSC

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:INSC. --Jarekt (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

CC-PD = No known restrictions?

When reviewing this photo from Flickr, I see a back-slashed "©" and a link to http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ labelled "Public domain", while the Commons page has {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} — but while the Flickr review bot doesn’t accept these two as equivalents, the Flickr review gadget doesn’t include {{CC-PD}} (because it is deprecated, probably). How to procede? Add {{CC-PD}} mannually and review the license? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Flickr has three kinds of "public domain" licenses: (a) "Public Domain Dedication" which is {{Cc-zero}} and is used for works where the Flickr user is the author and is releasing the work in the public domain, (b) "No known copyright restrictions" which is {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} where the Flickr user is a trusted instituion and they've determined the work is public domain for an unspecified reason, and (c) "Public Domain Mark" which is {{Flickr-public domain mark}} and can be used by any Flickr user to claim a work (possibly not their own) is PD for an unspecified reason.

Note that Flickr "Public Domain Mark" template {{Flickr-public domain mark}} requires the Commons uploader to immediately choose a more specific reason for the public domain status of the image, while {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} only suggests this instead of requireing it. I assume the difference is that Commons trusts the Flickr "The Commons" participating institutions to make responsible evaluations of public domain status, but requires uploader to perform this evaluation when the source is a random Flickr user. —RP88 (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As my experience during Flick review, for these kind of files, I review first if the file is actually in the PD, and then, manually apply {{PD-art}} or {{PD-scan}} with the correspondient PD tag, bellow the {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}, and then, pass the review (yes, is tedious). {{CC-PD}} or {{CC-0}} clearly does not apply for old pictures. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks both for your replies! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Uploading NASA albums from Flickr

While uploading albums of NASA from flickr, One user objects since few of those pictures already in commons from direct NASA site. I am sure that all of them are not here. All are historical,important data, quality photos. Since flickr to commons segregating duplicates , why can't I upload those important albums. Copyright wise all photos are eligible for upload to commons. Pls let me know. Regards. Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Because they are redundant duplicates. Don't you understand what I have been trying to tell you? They are exactly the same pictures. Secondarywaltz (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I went through a bunch of your uploads, and found that they were almost all duplicates. I've only spotted two so far that weren't. Please do a search before uploading, and don't upload copies of images that we already have. You're creating a lot of extra work for other editors to identify and eliminate so many redundant files. - Eureka Lott 20:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I commented about this earlier on Sumita Roy Dutta's talk page. The NASA Flickr feed is essentially a PR effort, not a release of 'new' data, and most of the images they are uploading are from image archives that were long ago scraped by bots. Please do not upload any NASA image from Flickr without doing a prior search on Commons for the image id, as you are probably uploading a duplicate of an existing image. Revent (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of the CC icons (used in several License tags and transcluded in thsousand of pages)

[Interjection: What follows is a misleading, inaccurate description of what I did and asked.  For an accurate description of what concerns me see Carl's summary.  -Elvey]

This seems a trivial issue, but some users are discussing about the copyright status of the CC icons present in Commons (used in License templates). Specially, the user Elvey tried to nominate File:Cc-by-sa.svg for deletion (see the File Talk page), but the file is protected for some reason. Therefore, the user opened this thread in the Help desk, asking why the file is protected and why he can't nominate it for deletion...

There are some considerations about these files:

And also, considering that these CC icons are used in License templates to indicate the license of files, and therefore, meets the allowed ussages in the FAQ, IMHO.

Then,

  • Are these icons (some or all of them) bellow the Threshold of originality?
  • Otherwise, Are these CC icons actually free to be used in Commons (in the context of licensing files under CC licenses)?

We need a clear concensus about this issue. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Amitie: Is it OK to use them in "License templates to indicate the license of files" and have them in a category, per se? Of course it is, but that's not all we're doing with them.
Trivial? TRIVIAL? Violating the copyright of Creative Commons doesn't seem trivial to me. If there's anyone whose copyright we should not disrespect, it's Creative Commons'! For one thing, we owe them, as a token of respect for all the good work they do and have done for us. We should handle these correctly. Many eyes are on these licenses, and when we disrespect them, what kind of example are we setting?
What's NOT OK is what I complained about, but you ignore. We're telling folks they are CC licensed. They aren't. For fuck sake, please don't misrepresent my argument again. Also you mention TOO as most important, but for some reason don't note that or link to where it's been said that gradients probably take these past the TOO. --Elvey (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
IMHO the disclaimer (bottom right) here is clear. [7] (Creative Commons License Buttons and Icons) doesn't invalidate this, IMHO that is. All high traffic pages are protected, nothing unusual there. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
It feels rather like you're refusing to get the point, Hedwig. The FAQ says "you may not alter the logos in any respect" - so this clearly is a note saying otherwise, when it comes to the logos.
Are you pleading ignorance or what, Hedwig? What part of *The Creative FAQ about the CC buttons do you not understand? --Elvey (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
That is part of the trademark license. It is not related to copyright or the concept of "free". If you feel we are committing a trademark violation by having these versions -- not outside the realm of possibility -- that is a separate matter (and can be worthy of deletion itself if we are). There is "fair use" of trademark as well, and we may be within that even if not explicitly given permission. There is a tortured history here which goes back years (maybe even a decade), and I haven't tried to find all the links -- but the top portion here is not authored by Creative Commons, but rather a contributor here. My vague memory says that was to avoid using a potential copyright on the icons themselves, as there was no copyright license on the buttons/icons at the time. I think it started with File:CC SomeRightsReserved.png, which was uploaded with a license by the uploader. That was converted to SVG with File:CC_some_rights_reserved.svg, which might be a derivative work and need the same licenses -- looks like the license has been flopped back and forth before. I guess after it was decided many/most of the CC icons (as opposed to buttons) were PD-ineligible then those were used to combine into other icons, with the copyright history being a bit of a mess. I'm sure it's below the threshold of eligibility in some countries (a simple gradient is not automatically eligible), but perhaps above in some others, so preserving the licenses might be a good idea, but those things have been copied far and wide. If you believe the icons in the bottom portion are PD, then there is no copyright issue here -- it is content owned (if even eligible) by a contributor here combined with some PD-ineligible works. All works are either PD or licensed freely which allows derivative works. Thus, there is no copyright issue, and all involved works are "free". They should not be deleted as non-free.
As for trademark... I don't know. The actual icon parts being used are not altered. This is not using the buttons, just the icons. They are combined with some other graphics, but is that actually trademark dilution? We are not using them for any other purpose -- in fact just the exact purpose they are meant to be used for. Their policy says: Creative Commons licenses the use of its button marks that describe a particular legal tool and its icon marks that describe a key license element, such as BY, NC, ND, and SA, on the conditions that you use the mark solely to describe the Creative Commons legal tool that applies to a particular work and, in a manner reasonable to the medium and context, include the URI or hyperlink to the relevant Commons deed on the Creative Commons server. It sure seems we are within that. It also says: You are not authorized to use any modified versions of our trademarks, except that you may use a different color for the CC logo and its background so long as the two colors chosen have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1. So they do allow altered versions of the CC logo in particular, which is basically what we are doing here. These have been here for 10 years, and I'm not sure Creative Commons has complained -- I'm sure we would listen if they did.
In short, there is no copyright issue here. Part of this was authored by contributors here, and the icons are also licensed freely by Creative Commons. The work is absolutely "free" by our definition. The licensing on these files might be a mess though given the history. Now, being free does not overrule any trademark rights at all, which remain in full force since they overlap, so we have to go by the terms of the trademark policy. Trademark violations are usually for misleading uses of a mark though -- there is none of that here; we use them for their prescribed purpose only. It feels to me as though we are within their trademark policy. I'm not sure that adding some surrounding material counts as "altering" the trademarked part (the circular icons). Thus, I don't feel there is a valid reason for deletion. Still, now that the CC buttons are freely licensed, it may be reasonable to retire our versions in preference to theirs anyways in our CC license tags. We probably have in many places. Even if retired though, I don't think we should delete them -- we can deprecate them if we think this is a big enough issue, but even just for historical purposes (looking at old versions of pages) these should be kept, and there is a long history with them. But I can also see folks preferring that we switch our tags to generally just use the buttons provided by CC (which are now "free" as well even though trademarked). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the history. I'll look at it. In the mean time:
You say "All works are either PD or licensed freely which allows derivative works." If there was good evidence of that, this discussion would be over, as far as I'm concerned. Stating it doesn't make it so. Stating that there's only a trademark issue doesn't make it so. Stating that the icons are also licensed freely by Creative Commons doesn't make it so. PROVE IT! If there was good evidence of ANY of that, this discussion would be over! Please address my argument. This trademark stuff is a distraction. So as to focus on what's key, do you see that the FAQ says "you may not alter the logos in any respect"? I am NOT concerned about CC logos that are not CC license permission-tagged. I'm not concerned with trademark issues. I ask that we stay focused.
Carl: Here's another argument that suggest the same conclusion: I see a double standard. Carl, you are saying on your talk page regarding work of the New Jersey government that we can't keep those works here because it's not 5000% clear that derivatives are allowed (and I'm arguing that it is clear that derivatives are allowed, but let's keep that discussion there). And yet here, there is strong evidence (certainly far more than needed to trigger COM:PRP) that derivatives are NOT allowed - "you may not alter the logos in any respect" is a copyright claim. Please explain why you do or don't see that as a double standard. No one has presented anything but the flimsiest evidence (namely the disclaimer (bottom right) here) that the logos have been released under a CC license. The onus is on those, like you, who want to keep CC license tags on the licenses currently thus tagged, to provide evidence that they are in fact CC licensed. If that can't be done, an administrator must remove the CC license tags. You cannot avoid the copyright issue by bringing up trademark issue distractions. Carl, can you please acknowledge for the record that you see that by tagging the licenses with CC license tags, we are telling people the logos are CC licensed? And that THIS is what concerns me?--Elvey (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, don't confuse Trademark restrictions with Copyright violations. Also, you didn't mentioned (or even considered) the Threshold or originality in neither part of your discussions.
In summary:
  • IMHO, we are not (or couldn't) violating the Trademark, because the icons are not altered, and all of them are used in the context that them are allowed to be used (License tags that provide the CC license for works, in the same way as the CC icons and buttons themselves), and,
  • We are not violating the Copyright in any way, due the Threshold of originality (Fair Use apply only for works above the TOO). (Almost) All the CC icons and buttons are (or seems) bellow the TOO in the US
Therefore, for your original question (trying to report a copyvio):
  • Short answer: The file is protected by wide Community concensus, due is heavily in use, including License template and several files, for several years.
  • Long answer: The whole above (and the over 10 years of) discussion, trying to explain the Threshold of originality, and the differences between Trademark and Copyright. We need to determine (if necessary in conjunction with Creative Commons) if this specific icon is bellow the TOO in the US (currently tagged with CC-BY-2.5) (the gradients are clearly bellow the TOO), or otherwise, finding a solution with Creative Commons... but deleting a high-visibility file is quite disruptive, even propossing them with weak arguments. The FAQ, the Policies and the Lawyers can say anything, but the US Copyright Law is the US Copyright Law, and the key of this discussion (and your question) is the TOO.
This is not a trivial issue that can be taken too lightly. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You ignore the bulk of what I've written. For fuck sake, Mr Ostrich, there are other members of community who object to what I'm objecting to. At least you do say: "(Almost) All the CC icons and buttons are (or seems) bellow the TOO in the US". What I am pissed off about is the icons that are above the TOO in the US. What part of that is so hard to understand? For fuck sake!! At least you take back your use of the word trivial. Yet you're still telling lies. Latest libelous statement removed. Amitie, can you please acknowledge for the record that YOU see that by tagging the licenses with CC license tags, we are telling people the logos are CC licensed? --Elvey (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Addendum: Administrators, please fix this. We mustn't be telling people they're free to make derivative works when we know they're not, and by leaving these incorrectly tagged, we're doing exactly that - and indirectly causing liability for copyright infringement. Others agree.

Well, when they say "you may not alter the logos in any respect" -- the question is what rights they are using to enforce that. You say that is a copyright claim, but the tenor of everything in there uses trademark language. Strictly speaking, the FAQ is not the policy text either -- the actual policy is a bit more nuanced. But if they are using copyright to enforce that, then yes it's an issue. If that is only part of the trademark terms on the other hand, it's not a free vs non-free issue, but strictly a trademark issue. For File:Cc-by-sa.svg, the top portion is not by CC at all -- that is unambiguously either PD-ineligible or licensed freely by the uploaders here. So then we have the two icons, the person in a circle and the backwards C in a circle. I think those, individually, are definitely PD-ineligible. Given File:Nikken Logo.jpg I don't think the humanoid figure gets any copyright, and putting a circle around things also doesn't add any copyright either. So, if those are PD-ineligible, there is no copyright that exists on File:Cc-by-sa.svg where CC could make a copyright claim or enforce any terms via copyright. I think that basically goes for all of their simple icons (the symbols in a circle), other than possibly the Remix one, and they have generally been uploaded here with PD-ineligible licenses. So if we agree that is the case, there is no copyright in the first place, so "you may not alter the logos in any respect" cannot be based on copyright at all for those. It can only be based on trademark. And do note that their trademark terms do allow you to modify the CC icon a bit. This style of graphic was created for the very reason you suggest -- to avoid using any copyrighted CC graphics which they do not release under a free license.
When it comes to the buttons (as opposed to the icons) I'm less sure. And while I thought the sitewide license covered those graphics, the policies page does say: Other than the Creative Commons trademarks (licensed subject to the Trademark Policy below) and the text of Creative Commons legal tools and human-readable Commons deeds (dedicated to the public domain as specified below), all content on this site is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license unless otherwise marked. So, that would seem to exclude the trademarked items from the sitewide CC-BY-4.0 license. So, if any of those trademarked graphics are above the threshold of originality, copyright would exist and would appear to not be licensed, so they would be non-free. But if they are considered below the threshold, copyright again can't exist in the first place. I'm less sure the buttons are below the threshold, though it's possible. If they are not "free" we probably shouldn't use them, so strike my suggestion above. But File:Cc-by-sa.svg doesn't -- that uses no copyrighted content from CC at all.
As for the New Jersey thing, the terms there are for works which are known to be copyrighted in the first place. Obviously, if there are PD-ineligible works on those web pages, those can be copied -- no copyright license can apply to those. And if you read my reply, I leaned towards that license being free anyways -- I just noted that the lack of specific mention of derivative works would probably be the contentious part if it came to a vote here. But anyways, when it comes to the simple icons in a circle, I don't think there is any copyright to begin with. We just have to deal with the trademark. And the white "CC" with the black gradient background is not a CC graphic -- that is by a contributor here, so no copyright issue there either. The CC buttons are the main question -- if PD-ineligible, they are OK, but if above the threshold, they aren't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
CARL! I asked you, Carl, can you please acknowledge for the record that you see that by tagging the licenses with CC license tags, we are telling people the logos are CC licensed? And that THIS is what concerns me? Can you please respond?--Elvey (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You mean the tags on the license images taken directly from Creative Commons' site? Agree, they should be either PD-ineligible/PD-textlogo or nothing (i.e. deleted). And marked {{Trademarked}}. But when they get combined with other content which had a CC-BY license to begin with, that gets more difficult. If that was a valid license when uploaded, that is necessary to preserve. Often, even if PD-ineligible in the US, I prefer to keep them to avoid issues in other countries. There probably should be text though which clarifies the icons in a circle are PD-ineligible, and gives their source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
YES! GREAT - we're in agreement, WRT You mean the tags on the license images taken directly from Creative Commons' site? Agree, they should be either PD-ineligible/PD-textlogo or nothing (i.e. deleted). And marked {{Trademarked}}. . Now we just need an admin to make it so. Amite?
I personally have replaced the CC license tags on some of these logos with PD-ineligible tags. But I'm unable to do so here due to someone being bullheaded, protecting them, and threatening me, thereby blocking discussion. So we have this circus. Let me be clear: if the CC license tags are removed, then the main issue that concerns me is resolved. If there's rough consensus that all of the logos are PD-ineligible (there may be), and PD-ineligible license tags are placed where CC license tags once were, I won't fight that. --Elvey (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Except there is content on this that may need to have the license tags. File:CC SomeRightsReserved.png was uploaded with licenses, and it may not be a good idea to simply remove those from derivatives. That may well be PD-ineligible in the US as well, but it still might be good to preserve in case it's above the threshold elsewhere. It looks like licenses have been swapped back and forth before, so it is all a bit messy. For images which combine that with the CC icons, then perhaps the licensing section should be clear as to which part the license refers to. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see we're making more progress. I see that there are some CC logos that seem to have been created de novo by wikimedians, rather than by Creative Commons folks. There may well be a trademark infringement issue there!
But before discussing/addressing those further, let's deal with the issue of license images taken directly from Creative Commons' site, and derivations thereof. Those are not CC-licensed, and any that are so tagged need to be untagged. For those that are protected, we need an admin to make it so. Amitie 10g?
Here are a few more examples of license images taken directly from Creative Commons' site with this problem - as Carl says they should be either PD-ineligible/PD-textlogo or nothing (i.e. deleted). And marked {{Trademarked}}.: File:CC-BY-NC-SA-icon-88x31.png   File:Cc-by white.png   File:Cc-by-nc-nd icon.svg   (protected)
Regarding trademark issues: The FAQ says: "Creative Commons does not recommend using a CC license on a logo or trademark. " It even says "Applying a CC license to your trademarks and logos could even result in a loss of your trademark rights altogether." Are you seriously claiming they have failed to follow their own advice? I trust not. So I think that's evidence that you're way out on a limb with your arguments that we can assume that they have released their logos under a CC license despite the "you may not alter the logos in any respect" lingo. Given they are clearly and strongly urging everyone not do to this, in plain and simple language, it seems wacky to assume they've done so anyway based on arguably tortured interpretations of arguably unclear language. --Elvey (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Elvey: Make an actual edit request, with the support of a consensus, and it will be done. The protections are obviously appropriate per the protection policy (heavily used images) and the inability of a non-privileged user to edit them to request deletion is a matter of Mediawiki functionality (there is no way to protect a page against only certain types of edits, and not others) and thus something that cannot be addressed by Commons admins, other than by making edits to such pages when requested. My personal understanding is that the CC images are only protected by trademark, not copyright, and thus that these complaints are just a waste of time, but I am willing to be overruled. Revent (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
So you ignore PRP and perpetuate copyfraud merely because you don't like the form of the edit requests I made and are evidently ignorant regarding copyright. Wow. The lack of remediation and active interference in remediation and participation in copyfraud by admins and your demanding that I individually flag each file with the edit request template is obstructionist bureaucracy at its worst. I can understand why User:Jimbo Wales threw up his hands in disgust at the admin pool here and doesn't even log in here anymore.
Your comment is deceptive; it's tangential because the edit history shows protection obviously wasn't put in place because they were heavily used images. There's consensus. PRP applies; an administrator must remove the CC license tags that are not valid. Furthermore, your statement of your understanding regarding copyright is evidence of your ignorance. I made an edit request. This is not a bureaucracy. --Elvey (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid the personal attacks. An image that is transcluded on thousands of pages (like File:Cc-by-sa.svg) should obviously be under full protection, the log entry when it was protected was "Highly visible image" with a link to the protection policy, and that policy specifically says "Pages may be full protected indefinitely if they are heavily used images or frequently transcluded templates to prevent vandalism." That directly applies to the CC license icons, and it's highly unlikely that they are going to be unprotected. If you want to open a DR on a protected image, just ask an admin to do it. We can't let you edit them to open a DR without letting any random autoconfirmed vandal change their description to 'poop'. As far wanting some of the licenses to be changed, without saying something like "here is a list of files, please change X to Y, per whatever discussion", you're basically just asking for an admin to skim though a category and 'supervote' on what they think should be changed, and that would be inappropriate. It would just open the door for more arguing later. Also, you can't just remove the only license tag from an image and just leave it floating in 'unlicensed limbo'. If you don't think a valid license applies to an image, DR it or flag it as a 'no license' speedy. Revent (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
What I actually wrote are statements regarding your comments - I commented on your comments, not on you - as our policies advise us to do. They contain so many things that are incorrect about the situation and copyright law I feel like throwing up my hands in despair. CIR! Therefore it's not a personal attack,Revent. Also, please stop being argumentative by, e.g. spewing more tangential commentary - obviously the protection was applied to protect this edit (which is copyfraud) by the editor who protected the page immediately after committing the copyfraud! Can you please admit or deny you see that temporal connection between those two edits? You seem to be avoiding seeing it, which is why I ask the pointed question. I'm not disputing that "Highly visible image" is a valid reason for protection. I'm just pointing out that there's obviously another reason the protection was put in place. Please AGF, specifically: make an effort to understand my points. We CAN just remove the only license tag from an image and leave it to others to figure out if a valid license can be added, and to do so. We do that FREQUENTLY. --Elvey (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to make this whole 'edit request' drama more explicit.. you said at File talk:Cc-by-sa.svg "My specific request is that this file be deleted". It's not going to be deleted on the basis of such a request, because there had been no deletion discussion. An edit request to 'open a DR for me', or to 'edit this page to link this DR I opened', would be fine, but that isn't what you asked for.
As far as the "Policy" page on the Creative Commons website, to my reading it nowhere says "You cannot modify our icons", it says "You cannot use our trademarked icons in connection with a modified license." Since the icons are all either CC-licensed or PD, there is no issue with the creation of derivative works based on them (you just need to respect any trademarks in regards to 'how' you use them). It's really not copyfraud for someone to claim that their own work (whether creating a new work, or a derivative) is under a free license, and that is what CC (and the creators of derivative icons) seem to be doing. They might be 'wrong' (if it's actually PD) but it's not copyfraud, since there is patently no attempt to get and kind of material gain (like a royalty) from the claim. Copyfraud really applies to attempt to make a profit from falsely claiming to own someone else's work. Without actual fraud, it can't be copyfraud, it can only be wrong. Revent (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Please AGF, Revent, specifically: make an effort to understand my points. Your comments contain so many things that are incorrect about the situation and copyright law I don't know where to start. CIR!
You don't know what copyfraud is. This is copyfraud. You need to read THIS, which says in part, Actually, Mazzone makes it clear that copyfraud does *not* require a specific showing of intent." and Mazzone makes it clear that "copyfraud" is not simply a kind of fraud. Please make an effort to understand that discussion. Your idea that "Without actual fraud, it can't be copyfraud" has been discussed there and discarded as incorrect.
Evidence is sorely lacking that "the icons are all either CC-licensed or PD". I've quoted several statements from the CC website that you seem to be purposefully ignoring - statements that are strong evidence against this claim. And see Carl's comment below. None are CC-licensed. Some are PD.
Of course its not copyfraud for someone to claim that their own original work is under a free license. It is copyfraud for someone to claim that a derivative of a copyrighted work that's not under a free license, is under a free license. I claimed the latter, you misunderstand if you think I think the former is copyfraud! A profit motive is NOT a necessary component of copyfraud. You think it is; provide evidence for that claim or drop it, please. False copyright notices are copyfraud. Source - and note; the term "copyfraud" was coined herein by the author, a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois--Elvey (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think their website is pretty explicit that their trademarked graphics are not CC-licensed (and it looks like it has been pretty explicit for many years). Many are PD-ineligible, but if any are not, they could be copyright issues. Elvey's other point is that ones which are PD-ineligible should be changed to say so (since there is no CC license on any of them by CC itself, though Commons-authored graphics like this one might be). File:Cc-by-sa.svg is a bad example because it combines a PD-ineligible graphics with a GFDL/CC-licensed work by a Commons contributor. File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg is a more interesting question (and the one which is least likely to be PD-ineligible). I don't think there is a basis for the current license there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
HEAR HEAR! Exactly. Thank you for clarifying / restating the key issues and your understanding thereof. Please w:make it so already, rather than arguing ad infinitum, admins. (As for work that combines PD-ineligible graphics with a GFDL/CC-licensed work by a Commons contributor, we should be making it clear, including by identifying the author as that Commons contributor, not CC.) --Elvey (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: Taking a closer look at File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg, I see very suspect provenance. It says "Source creativecommons.org" but lists ArdWar as the author. Both of those can't be true. (It's farfetched that ArdWar worked for CC.) So I think CC is the author, and ArdWar merely uploaded it. So I rather doubt it's GFDL/CC-licensed work by a Commons contributor and so needs to be deleted - unless we A)decide TOO isn't met AND B)correct the author field. Same situation with a bunch of these. --Elvey (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
ArdWar is listed as the uploader, not the author. Common boilerplate put in by the transfer bots. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that since they are all (the CC-sourced ones, and the user-created versions) either CC-licensed or PD, there is nothing to prevent creating derivative versions, certainly not a trademark. The only components that even come close to being copyrightable, IMO, are the 'CC-BY' man, and the 'waveform' used on the old sampling license, and both of those are so similar to copious prior art that I'd really surprised. The idea of creating that kind of 'button' is also not new to them. The only possible trademark issue I see (other than trying to parse CC's intent regarding what isn't licensed, especially since there are ones that meet the description that aren't on that page) is that it might be better to use the 'official' buttons in our license templates, instead of the ones created by third parties. As far as the files that actually do have the wrong tag, I'll plow through and look for them, but it looks like most aren't protected anyway. Revent (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: I don't see where the CC-sourced ones are CC-licensed. I think that's the crux of the issue. Their rights page explicitly exempts those graphics from the site-wide CC-BY license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Apparently not my day to be clear, probably because this whole conversation has been about multiple things at once. I'll try to do better, and you can consider this to be ignoring any CC-sourced icons that you think are copyrightable (I really don't think any are). The 'other' CC-sourced icons are all PD. The user-sourced icons are all either PD, or CC-licensed. Either of those is sufficient to allow for the creation of derivatives, so any we have that are not based on copyrightable CC-sourced icons are fine to keep (though the licensing should of course be fixed).
Any trademark restrictions on the CC-sourced material are irrelevant to this, even if they restrict modification, because trademark only applies to their use in some context. Our hosting of them as downloadable files is not in the context of representing the licenses; we are depicting the icons themselves (File:Coca-Cola logo.svg is not trademark infringement). The only place where we could (potentially) be in trademark trouble is where we are using 'unofficial' logos to represent CC licenses, or if we were using CC-trademarked material to represent other licenses.
All I have been doing to these is changing the license tag on ones that are incontrovertibly directly from Creative Commons to be either PD-textlogo or PD-ineligible instead of having the CC license that everyone agrees is wrong. So far, it looks like hardly any of them are protected anyhow. Any that are 'based on' CC-sourced material will need a closer look, to decide if the creator of the derivative added anything that is copyrightable. If someone thinks one of the CC-sourced icons 'is' actually copyrightable, then it (and it's derivatives) need to go to DR.
Any complaints? Revent (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: No complaints... that is how I see it. I think much of the initial idea was mostly to fix the licensing, as many of the CC-sourced icons have a CC license instead of PD-ineligible. Those should absolutely be fixed, and I think is all that User:Elvey is asking (at this point anyways). Most of the CC-sourced icons are absolutely PD-ineligible and not a problem to host here, as you say. The style of icons such as File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg I'm a lot less sure about, though PD-ineligible is still a decent possibility. There's a bit more arrangement going on there. At this point though, the licenses should be changed to PD-ineligible, unless it is from a Commons uploader and licensed that way, in which case the license should be fixed to correspond with those original uploads. File:Cc-by-sa.svg still has an incorrect license I think -- the upload it was based on was an earlier version of CC-BY I think, and cross-licensed GFDL. But yes I'm in agreement (as is I think User:Elvey; I think he assumed that something was not PD-ineligible and was thus trying to start a DR but that was not the correct approach for that file for sure). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, my main concern at this point (what I am doing) is removing the CC licenses that are clearly incorrect from images that came directly from CC, and flagging them as some form of ineligible instead. Like I've noted, most are unprotected so anyone can fix them, though. As far as the ones like File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg, you're completely right that they are more complex. My argument would essentially be that the concept of such a 'button' for websites, with the organization logo placed on the left, was around long before Creative Commons made these, and the other aspects of the design also appear to be to be 'standard and obvious'. It's clearly a matter of degree (and opinion) but I don't see any 'particular' point of the design that I can point at and say "This is creatively original". If someone feels otherwise, we can always debate that point, and see what people decide, but I don't think anyone has been trying to make that particular case in this discussion. Revent (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST

If my edit requests have been insufficiently clear, let me try again. Let me be clear/ make a new clear request. An admin needs to remove any CC license tag from all uploads that are sourced from http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads, including File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg As I have said, and Carl concurs, "their website is pretty explicit that their trademarked graphics are not CC-licensed (and it looks like it has been pretty explicit for many years)." My specific request is that the CC tags such as {{Cc-by-3.0}} and {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} be removed promptly.--Elvey (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting {{Cc-by-3.0}} and {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}? ...Well, I seriously thinking that you're just trolling; if I'm wrong, please provide valid and solid reasons why you want to delete these files and templates used in thousand (and even million) of pages.
Even if the Protection Policy is not enough for you, the US Copyright Law comes into play. The prhase Threshold of originality is mentioned 5 times above, but you didn't mentioned (and even considered?) that, making your reasoning for deletion almost invalid. Namely, all the CC icons and buttons, even File:Cc-by new.svg are not protected by the US Copyright Law, and therefore, there is no copyvio or copyfraud in any way (unless the specific versions of these buttons has been created in countries where the TOO is very low). If you disagree, just contact the US Patent and Trademark Office or any US Government agency (and even an US Federal Court) and ask if the design of File:Cc-by new.svg meets or not the TOO (we also need an answer from the US Government); if they decided that the design is bellow the TOO, nothing to do...
And yes, we should credit and source properly the CC buttons, but wanting to delete files and templates heavily in use is just disruptive and not the best way to keep Commons free. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually want to delete those templates (though, that is how it read) but to have those templates removed from some file pages (the ones that are actually CC trademarks, and so not CC-licensed by CC). I'm actually looking through the categories right now for the ones where it applies, though most don't seem to be protected pages, so anyone could fix the issue (as long as they didn't just leave them unlicensed). Revent (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Though 'all uploads that are sourced from http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads' was really not an effective way to find the problems, after hunting through Category:Creative Commons icons and Category:SVG Creative Commons icons I think I caught them all. Hopefully, we have no more cases of claiming that Creative Commons has issued a CC license for any of their trademarks, and should be noting the existence of such a trademark when applicable. If I missed something, or made a mistake somewhere, please either fix it or bring it up (or, if you think it's needed, start a DR). Revent (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/09&oldid=303778999"