Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/11

Requirement to "reproduce accurately" -> run afoul of no derivatives

The website for the Indian state of Maharashtra[1] contains the following permission statement is written in Marathi, as translated by Ricky141 on my talk page:

Material featured on this portal may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of the third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material is obtained from the copyright holders concerned.

Does the clause about the material "being reproduced accurately" run sufficiently afoul of the Wikimedia free-use policies regarding no derivatives that we shouldn't upload it? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I would not read this strictly as a copyright condition, [if] this state published material is Public Domain, presumably as it has been paid for by the tax payer. The first sentence overrides the rest of the paragraph, you cannot release material without requiring permission and then tack on arbitrary constraints. In practice, Commons complies with the spirit of this request (via COM:IDENT), we just cannot guarantee to pass that on to re-users of public domain material. I suggest it would be fair to put the same text on the image page to make it clear to the reuser what the wishes of Maharashtra State were.

For comparison, PD material from the US Whitehouse requires that it be used respectfully of the "First Family", however we don't bother to even put that text on the image page when we upload from the Whitehouse website(s), we just apply the standard PD-USGov licence.

Were this me doing a batch upload, I would write to the most relevant website contact and explain that I plan to upload a pile of images from their site for the public benefit to WM Commons and supply them links to the project page or category where the images would reside, possibly picking a couple as a test upload so they can see how context is preserved and attribution given. If they have a problem, at least I can point to my polite email asking them if they have any objections and if the licence or attribution needed to be changed to meet their interpretation. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree for the following reasons:

• I don't see anything in the translated statement which suggests that material owned by the state of Maharashtra is in the public domain. The sentence "Material featured on this portal may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission" amounts at most to a licence to use copyrighted material without asking for permission and without payment of a fee. There is no indication at all that Maharashtra has waived its copyright in the material. Not all government-owned material is in the public domain; whether this is the case depends on the law in each jurisdiction.
• The first sentence is clearly stated to be "subject to the material being reproduced accurately". Thus, the material in question can only be reproduced without charge or specific permission if and only if the material is reproduced accurately. I don't think we can ignore the restriction in the second sentence. It clearly prohibits modification of material, which means that the conditions for the use of the material are not sufficiently free for Commons purposes.

I agree that the best thing to do would be to contact the state government and explicitly request that they release selected material under a suitable free licence. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My statement does read overly didactic. To clarify, I have added the word "if" and would like to say that my knowledge of copyright in India is seen through the lens of what it inherits from the UK; consequently there is no guarantee that the State automatically makes the material PD, even if citizens may expect to have a right of access. Confirming the detailed scenario would take more research than I have given this case, and I certainly support further checks before taking any action. --Fæ (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds very similar to article 11 of the Swedish copyright law. "När ett verk återges offentligt med stöd av detta kapitel skall källan anges i den omfattning och på det sätt som god sed kräver samt får verket inte ändras i större utsträckning än användningen kräver." = "When a work is reproduced publicly under this chapter, the source must be given to the extent and in the way required by good customs and the work may not be changed to a greater extent than required for the use." That requirement applies to all Swedish copyrighted works, and we accept COM:DM#Sweden and COM:FOP#Sweden as free. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Similar restrictions from other governments have been interpreted in Commons just as moral rights: image or data can't be changed into a misleading or false meaning. Anyway, it depends on the exact wording of each statement.--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Pere prlpz; many Indian sites have similar terms. I think it can be acceptable here. Some sites need prior permission for every reuse; so not acceptable here. Example fore a more restricted license; somewhat similar to an NC license.

But all the materials on these sites are not owned by them. Such materials can't be used here. (The permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any third-party material. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the departments/copyright holders concerned.)

maharashtra.gov.in has an English version too (click or the rightmost link on top). Copyright: https://www.maharashtra.gov.in/1081/Disclaimer-and-Policies JKadavoor Jee 11:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• The issue hinges on the use of "reproduce". This does not explicitly mean derivative works, it could be that they intend reproduce to be like ND. That permission is not explicit enough for Commons, and would be subjected to a DR. It would be best to get them to release under a CC licence explicitly. russavia (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Little chance for a Govt/Govt organisation uses a CC license; I afraid. May be Sreejithk2000 can help further. JKadavoor Jee 13:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are many government organisations where I live (New Zealand) using a CC license. It's probably easier than coming up with something of your own like {{OGL}}. Anyway, I agree with Russavia. Maharashtra gives permission only to "reproduce" content from their website, not to adapt it (at least not explicitly), so that isn't a free license. The constraint about reproducing it accurately is a moot point. --Avenue (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm talking about Indian Govt/semi govt institutions. We're not that much advanced. :) (Let us see Sreejithk2000, Yann or somebody from India can do some discussions with them.) JKadavoor Jee 13:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Except for a handful of websites, everything that's owned by Government of India is copyright protected. Unless there is an explicit statement of permission for free use, I would not assume anything to be free to be uploaded here. This is something the entire Wikimedia community in India is fighting on. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting project. It would be nice to have a brief project page on Commons that summarised the situation with questions like this in mind, some case studies to point to and the right Wikimedia contacts to approach. I'm not living in India, but I know there are volunteers there that are some of our most passionate contributors. --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sreejith, about the info on the fights! I too, with you. JKadavoor Jee 15:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This image is subject to copyright

File:School logo 2013-11-01 14-33.jpg. Please do whatever needs to be done. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It has been nominated for speedy deletion by AVRS. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

copyright violate

copyright violate:

--Sanyika, a ló (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Moscow, Rubtsovskaya 4 Aug 2009 02.JPG

What is the copyright status of this image? It seems to me that there should be appropriate evidence that it is below the threshold of originality. Opinions by themselves are not evidence of such a threshold. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

en:File:Fearlessrecords.jpg

Quick question, is this simple enough for {{PD-ineligible}}? //  Gikü  said  done  Sunday, 3 November 2013 20:25 (UTC)

Public domain image posted here: ok to use in academic book?

I have read (for over one hour) the various statements and links here about reusing images from wikimedia outside the internet, and I am sorry to admit I'm more confused than before. Can it be true that a Public Domain (13th century) image (this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meister_des_al-Mubashshir-Manuskripts_002.jpg ) cannot be printed in an academic book, without then turning that academic book into a non-salable item, i.e. forcing the university press to give away the book for free? What I hope to do is use this image, in black and white, as one of 20 images in a scholarly book, and of course I will credit the site and the original library that held the manuscript. But the press will need to sell the book, not give it away. This will constitute one page in an approximately 300-page book. Please help! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.233.128.211 (talk) 20:46, November 3, 2013‎ (UTC)

No, the image is public domain and you can do what you like with it. The "compilation copyright" would only apply if you were reproducing the collection of images. ghouston (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The answer to your question ("Can it be true that ...") is clearly "no". Public domain just means you can use the image any way you want. A lot of publishers publish public domain images in their books. If anything anywhere on the site inadvertently gave you a different impression, please tell what page, so it can be clarified if necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeout here, everyone. The answer is much more nuanced than that. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. The Wikimedia Foundation ignores any claim to a copyright for a machine scan of a public domain work, but the WMF's opinion is not legally binding. While you might win in court, you also might have to spend a ton of money on legal bills, and that's just for the United States. In the UK, copyright can be claimed on simplistic reproductions. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

However the template for this collection doesn't say anything about the publishers claiming copyright just for scanning it. They may have published it explicitly as a public domain collection. See also Commons:10,000_paintings_from_Directmedia. ghouston (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

However, the email quoted on the page just mentions GFDL. It's also possible that the template incorrectly omits the usual PD-Art warning - the name of the template PD-Art-YorckProject gives a hint of that. Perhaps somebody could check if OTRS has anything futher? ghouston (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

But it's not true for the United States. Bridgeman v. Corel is settled law; it's been 14 years, and every decision since then remotely relevant has cited it and followed it. Any number of plantiffs could have brought a case against it and have decided the probability of winning made it not worth it. This work is especially safe, as there's no one actually making a copyright claim on it. To the extent "While you might win in court" is true, it's true for every single work in Commons.

(w:Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.#Relevance_to_U.K._law says that the law is not settled in the UK, which is less affirmative then your claim. For this work, the fact that a German corporation has distributed it in UK should provide at least a little comfort.)

I'd point out, however, this is probably not in the OP's hands. If a university press is printing this, then you need to look up what their rules are (which may be needlessly limiting, but they get to set their own rules) or talk to your editor (who may talk to university lawyers.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to all; I shall indeed check with the editors. (OP)

Lizenz für ein Bild einer lebenden Person

Ich kann gut Englisch, aber es ist anscheinend nicht möglich innert einer halben Stunde auf WikiMedia Commons herauszufinden, was bzw. welchen Text der Autor eines Bildes an permissions-de@wikimedia.org schicken muss, damit das Bild dann frei verwendet werden kann. Das ist ein sehr häufiger Fall. Man weiss, dass man das Einverständnis braucht. Wie dieses Einverständnis aber zu formulieren ist, steht nicht da. WO IST DIESE VERD..... VORLAGE?!? Gruss, Theophilus --Theophilus77 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Angenommen, es geht um Commons-Bilder, und nicht um lokale de-Wiki Uploads: Die &*/&%$§= englische Vorlage zum Genehmigen von Commons-Bildern (über permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) liegt auf Commons:email templates :). Der ganze Vorgang ist unter Commons:OTRS beschrieben. Eine Übersicht möglicher Commons-Lizenzen und -Regeln ist unter Commons:Licensing. Hinweis: für das Hochladen personenbezogener Bilder bitte auch die Hinweise unter Commons:Country specific consent requirements beachten. Was das Einverständnis der abgebildeten Person angeht, ist normalerweise keine "formelle" Zustimmung notwendig solange der Uploader versichert, das diese Zustimmung erteilt wurde. Siehe Commons:Photographs of identifiable people - "Normally it is sufficient that the uploader asserts that appropriate consent was given." GermanJoe (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A template which indicates that the person who uploaded a file, is authorized by the copyright owner to publish the file using the free license

A Ukrainian poetess Ishchenko Svitlana, who currently lives abroad, sent me her portrait picture. She wrote me a letter that she owns the copyright on this file. She also asked me to illustrate with this picture the article http://ukrainka.org.ua/node/142 on a site that I support, and to illustrate with this picture the article about her on Wikipedia.

1. I uploaded the photo on the page http://ukrainka.org.ua/node/143,
2. I pointed out there, that the picture is available under CC BY-SA with a link to the page with the text of the CC BY-SA license.
3. I uploaded the file on Wikimedia Commons File:Ischenko_svitlana.jpg, made a reference to http://ukrainka.org.ua/node/143
4. I illustrated the article uk:Іщенко Світлана Вікторівна

Is a template {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} appropriate for this case?

Probably there is another template which would indicate that the person who uploaded a file, is authorized by the copyright owner to publish the file using the CC BY-SA license?

If this kind of template does not exist, I believe, it has to be created. --Perohanych (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You can use {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, send a copy of the letter to OTRS and put another template in the page linking to the OTRS ticket (or claiming OTRS ticket pending).--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright permission when publisher no longer exists

I would like to use an image from a book. The author has given his permission, but the publisher no longer exists. How should I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAllen (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking about how to go about reusing the image yourself, or are you asking how to properly upload the image to Commons? With regards to the first, we can't provide you with legal advice, instead it would be best if you speak to a competent intellectual property lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. With regards to uploading that image to Commons, the first step is to identify the creator of the image. You haven't given us much information to go on. Is the image in question a work entirely created by the author? If it was, his contract with the publisher may limit his ability to offer the image to us under the terms of a free license. If it wasn't created by the author, the image's copyright may belong to the artist that created it, or (if it was created under the terms of a work-for-hire contract) the "successor in interest" to the defect publisher's copyrights. In this case we may need the permission of someone other than the author. —RP88 03:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Question: Canadian photograph from August 1941 courtesy of the archives at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

I'm editing several Wikiepdia articles relating the history of the Royal Canadian Air Force in the period 1941-1945 including "RCAF Station Guelph". The archivists at the University of Guelph have given me .JPGs for 75 newspaper clippings and about 10 photographs. I would like to use a few of these things in my article. For example, there is one photograph from August 1941 that depicts the official opening of the air station at Guelph. If I understand the Canadian situation since the photograph pre-dates 1949 it is in the public domain. What about the U.S.? Will I be able to upload this in Commons? What about the newspaper clippings? Most of the clippings are from the period 1939-1945. I've read the Commons copyright help pages several times, but I'm not sure what I can do with these treasures from the U of G Archives. Thanks in advance SteveTheAirman (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the photograph published in August 1941, it can be tagged with {{PD-Canada}} and {{PD-1996}} if you can establish that the photo was first published in Canada (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and that it was published without complying with U.S. copyright formalities required at the time (i.e. it was published without both a proper copyright notice and registration with the U.S. Copyright Office). The news clipping will be trickier, as you'll need to identify the authors and their dates of death to determine if they are in the public domain. Unless all of the contributing authors for an article died before 1946, the article is probably not in the public domain in both Canada and the U.S. —RP88 03:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Which of those are copyvios?

Three pictures in w:Tara (von Neudorf). Modern art, no proof that the subject released the rights, so all need to go? Or would 1 and 3 pass de minima or such? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation as derivative work?

This picture of mine that I uploaded to illustrate an article about the Mercedes COMAND system was previously deleted on the basis of the argument that it constitutes a "Derivative of non-free content":

I disagree with that interpretation and maintain that this picture simply shows a clearly utilitarian aspect of the COMAND system. Indeed, its function in the car is demonstrably utilitarian (it shows the system that is being modified, with its specific controls, as well as general functions to switch systems, operate the climate control etc), not artistic or similar. Opinions/References? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuidoGY (talk • contribs)

I don't see how this is much different from what is described in Commons:Screenshots#Software. While the software may be utilitarian, it is still software and while it is taken with a camera and not a piece of software, it is still a screenshot. --heb [T C E] 14:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is an artistic drawing with its own creative content. They could have used a photograph of a real car with pointers, you may have had a valid argument in that scenario. I agree that the guidance for screenshots applies to this case. --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Family Photo Albums Copyright

I've got several old family photo albums, dating from ca before 1950. The album photographs come in 2 categories. Snaps taken by my family members, but also photo-portraits taken by commercial photographers/studios, the latter being commissioned by the sitters (my family members in this case). Many of these studios no longer exist and the name of the individual photographer is usually unknown. Is it allowed for me to publish these pictures on Wikipedia, since they belong to my personal archive? And to whom should the copy rights be attributed? Paul Mueller (talk)

No, there's no general permission for family photo albums. It's inconvenient (many, including myself, are in a similar situation - I have old family photo albums which contain photos that would be interesting for Commons or Wikipedia but where it would be too cumbersome to obtain the needed formal permissions), but the usual copyright restrictions apply. So, even "snaps taken by my family members" can only be used if the relevant family members or their heirs all agree to release these snaps under a free license and permission is sent, best using the OTRS and an appropriately filled-out e-mail template. The copyright of works by commercial photographers probably is still owned by either their heirs, the studio, or the studio's legal successor, if it no longer exists. It's often nearly impossible to find the legal successor, but even if you don't know the name of the individual photographer, I think we can't just assume that the photos are anonymous works (and even then, they would become free only 70 years after publication in the EU, see Template:Anonymous-EU - I'm guessing from your name that you are from a German-speaking country, but if you're e.g. from the U.S., matters are even more complicated). "Orphan works" where there probably still is copyright but the rights owner isn't reachable are a substantial problem, but we can't solve it here... Commons only accepts works where the situation is clear and which are either in the public domain or where the rights owners have agreed to a free license. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

{{Anonymous-EU}} won't help you with family photos as those most certainly are unpublished. Unpublished anonymous family photos are copyrighted in the United States for 120 years since creation regardless of their source country, see COM:HIRTLE. The good thing with USA is that you only need permission from one of the heirs whereas in many other countries you need permission from all of the heirs, so if you can determine that the photo is out of copyright elsewhere in the world, you only need to dig up one heir, and you might be a heir yourself. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

*scratching head*... the question pops up: Whose heirs, after all, would be the heirs that would have to give the permission for "unpublished anonymous family photos", after all? If we don't know who took the photos and thus was the original copyright holder, we don't know who are the heirs who would have to give permission for such works that are still copyrighted in the US, don't we? So we are left with the "orphan works" problem: The works are anonymous, but unpublished, so still protected for 120 years in the US, but due to the unknown author, there's no-one around who could give permission. Right? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

For family photos, you can usually narrow this down to a small number of potential photographers: your grandfather, one of your grandfather's brothers or sisters, or your grandfather's parents. In selected cases, other people may also have to be considered as potential photographers. Dig up one heir of each potential photographer, and you have a permission valid in the United States. For other countries, you usually need to dig up all heirs of each potential photographer, which takes a lot more time and effort. In some cases, the photographer will be some professional photographer, and then everything breaks, potentially requiring permission from everyone who is the heir of a professional photographer (which is unmanageable). --Stefan4 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, this poses the question whether it's legally possible at all to give permission for something of which you are only a potential copyright holder... and how to document this for Commons? Really sending something along the lines of "X, Y and Z, which are potential copyright holders of a work with unknown creator, have given their permission to release this work as CC-BY-SA" or the like... resp. having them all send their "potential permission" to the OTRS separately? Do you know of any actual cases here where it was done in this way? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any case like this where a permission statement has been written and/or sent to OTRS, but I'm not an OTRS member, so I don't know exactly what they receive. You may have to pay a lot of attention to how the permission statement is written. You could maybe write it on a piece of paper and ask all potential copyright holders sign it, or something. Locating 20-30 relatives could take a lot of time, and some might say no, so it is maybe impossible in practise. Waiting until 120 years have passed may be the only option. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your speedy reply. Ik gives me a better idea of the whole copyright issue. I will look further into it. Cheers Paul Mueller (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Painting published in a book

Who is the copyright holder of a painting published in a book? According to me, the book publisher; but others feel the artist. Two deletion requests Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dhruva.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yama and Nachiketa.jpg faced the issue, but one was a keep, other a delete. Both deletion requests should have the same result ideally as they are paintings from the same book. Do you have a policy which handles the question? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The artist's copyright is the one important for us. We decided that faithful reproductions of paintings do not create a new copyright. Now it is a bit tricky, because it could depend where the paintings were first published, and it is possible that it was in this book, so then it depends of the book copyright status. Yann (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Who holds the copyright is not the interesting question for us; the duration of a copyright is based on the life of the author in pretty much all cases but the US, no matter who holds the copyright. Since the painter died in 1964, the paintings are going to be in copyright until 2035 in the UK (life+70) and 2025 in India (life + 60). By Commons rules, one of those is the important one, and it won't matter for a decade (or until Commons changes its rules) which is the country of first publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Prosfilaes is right. It would only be in the public domain if first published in the USA. Yann (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disputing image deletion: Second Life avatar copyright

What is the official policy regarding uploads containing Second Life avatars?

There is a highly educational image I created in Second Life and uploaded, and had been around for a couple years in the CT Scan article on Wikipedia, but some recent editor raised a stink over it and got it deleted. I tried to answer all of their copyright complaints as best I could, but in the end I can not find anything definitive on avatar silhouettes and so it was recently deleted.

• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CT_Scan_of_Dale_Mahalko's_brain_--_in_Second_Life.jpg

Meanwhile we have a hundred or more other Second Life images all containing avatars in various images:

• Category:Second_Life

So what's the deal here, why is my lone image being singled out for deletion while all these continue to exist in the Commons? Apparently the entire collection of SL imagery containing any avatar depictions should be deleted? No, rather I believe this editor's deletion needs to be undone and my image restored.

-- DMahalko (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see the particular image in question as I'm not an admin, however the SL policies are clear enough. If the creations that were in any snapshot were entirely your creation, then you are free to publish snapshots off-world for free reuse. If you were using something like a standard off-the-shelf Linden avatar, then this would be a derived work of their creation and it probably cannot be hosted on Commons without a release from Linden Labs.

If parts of the original image were not your creation, it may be sufficient to crop or mask them out, leaving just your creative content displayed. You may want to go for an undeletion request on this basis.

I suspect that many images in the Second Life category may be problematic as not everything in a snapshot might be original creations on the creator's SL property and consent from other SL users may not have been checked.

There is no equivalent to Freedom of Panorama in Second Life. --Fæ (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The image contains a CT scan of a brain, a control panel, and a figure of a man. I doubt that the control panel has a copyright. If both the CT scan and the man are DMahalko's work, then this should be restored -- and, in fact in Commons:Deletion requests/File:CT Scan of Dale Mahalko's brain -- in Second Life.jpg, the reason for deletion was the unknown status of the figure. The Second Life use policy quoted at the DR says:

"...you must have the consent of all Residents whose avatars or Second Life names are featured or recognizable in the machinima.... Consent is not required if an avatar is not recognizable."

I am not a Second Life user, so I don't know if the figure is recognizable or not. If it is not, then that is another reason for restoration.

In addition to copyright questions, there is also the question of whether any given Second Life image is in scope. Just as images of non-notable real people and places are often out of scope, many Second Life images will be out of scope as personal art. This one, however, would appear to be educational. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

From the description it is in scope as it sounds useful for illustration. Personally having done some programming of automated constructions in SL a few years ago, there is great potential for Commons contributors to do 3D modelling in SL (a nice use of free tools for this outcome) with the express purpose of educational illustration, we should be encouraging them to do so. --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

At the time, this image was deleted as 'unclear copyright status' in regard to the avatar. If the community comes to the agreement that the avatar is in the public domain or not important, I do not object to the undeletion. As to the scope, the brain CT depicted in this image is available independently at File:CT Scan of Dale Mahalko's brain-skull.jpg; I don't think the surrounding SL environment adds much educational value. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

All I can see from that jpg is the view from one angle. This is a 3D structure and I would find seeing it being used in SL interesting and educational, having never used SL in this way myself. What would be really nice would be a video of someone with a view flying around the 3D model in SL, then uploaded to Commons as an ogv file as an example for others of what can be done in SL to bring these models to life. It might help motivate other Second Lifers to kick off innovative projects that make use of open data sources. --Fæ (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If DMahalko can create such a video, it would be a very valuable contribution. The copyright status of the avatar still remains unclear though. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to express an opinion on the avatar, I cannot see it. --Fæ (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have cloned out the possibly offending avatar and uploaded the image again. I don't think this is any worse for the image, as the man was facing away from the control panel and it wasn't at all clear why he was there at all. See File:CT Scan of Dale Mahalko's brain -- in Second Life.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the second image is to demonstrate that the 3D scan was constructed, assembled, and viewable by anyone within Second Life. I have not found anyone else to have done such a thing in Second Life so far. I built the control panel, and the avatar is mine, and is shown in the image to show the "scale" of the brain scan and control panel and how it appears in Second Life for anyone else wanting to see it and use the control panel to manipulate it.

Meanwhile, I'm sorta waiting for Eleassar to state that "the status is unclear" for all the other avatars in every other SL image on the Commons. Why is Eleassar picking on just my image, which has a justifiably higher educational content compared to many of the other Commons images containing SL avatars? -- DMahalko (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should, but I'm not so much interested in investing time to do this; this image was of interest to me just because it is the only one that displays a CT image (which is free in my opinion). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jim for restoring an amended copy of the deleted SL image and I appreciate Eleassar backing off. This was nice work DMahalko, if you are still active in SL, please do consider how you might create a video of moving around the 3D object. If you are interesting in 3D modelling, there is a lot of improvement needed on Commons in this area. I find firefogg an easy way of converting to the accepted OGV open standard for video.

By the way, if you have a problem with DRs due to the inclusion of your own SL avatar and you are not using standard off-the-shelf designs (such as standard clothes) but your own design, then please do remember to notify me as I will be happy to express a detailed opinion and establish the copyright precedent for Commons. In my opinion the Linden Labs terms are clear enough to support you. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

" Meanwhile, I'm sorta waiting for Eleassar to state..." -- DMahalko, I'm afraid you don't understand the fundamental problem we work with here on Commons. Every day more than 10,000 new images are uploaded. Of those, a significant fraction are not acceptable -- mostly copyvio or out of scope Facebook images, but other reasons as well. It's hard to get a handle on the number of those, but a year ago we were deleting 2,000 images a day. Now, despite an increase in the number of new images every day, we are deleting only about 1,000. We have lost several very active Admins, so we can't keep up with the flood.

Despite the fact that we have 25,000 users every month and 261 Admins, the vast bulk of the deletion work is done by a very few people. In the last month, half of the 32,000 deletions were done by 5 people and 90% by 25. I don't have a solid statistic for how many users file DRs, but I think that the curve is similarly steep. Eleassar is one of our most active editors -- almost 200,000 global contributions to WMF. He has plenty of places to put his DRs -- we almost certainly have hundreds of thousands of problem images.

Now that you understand that SL avatars require permission, you might consider posting DRs on the ones that seem to be problems. As an experienced SL user, you would be far better at it than most of us. Of course, I wouldn't want that to get in the way of your uploading innovative new images, as suggested above. Perhaps you could do both? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Having a known SL "expert" user would be a great way to handle these. A reference case book of past DRs and the fact that you have read through the Linden Labs terms of use and their guidance to copyright would give your point of view solid weight. Admins are not here to over-rule everyone else, this is one of those situations where we just need to establish the facts and a community consensus for how to interpret Commons policies in these cases. --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone check licence

File:Logotipo Rede Globo.png and File:Jornal da Cultura logotipo.png, are the licences valid.--Motopark (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Status of government/police files in Portugal

Does anyone here know about the copyright status of images taken by the police/government in Portugal? It is about the images in this police report about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, which I'd like to use in an article and ideally upload to Commons. The photographs were taken in 2007 by the Polícia Judiciária, the country's criminal police. The whole case file, including images, was released by the Ministério Público (released as in given to the media) in 2008. Any guidance would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any information about government works on Commons. You can find the entire copyright law here in Portuguese, but I don't know if you can read it and it is often difficult to understand the implications of a law if you don't have any education about that country's laws or legal system. Article 7 mentions some government works which aren't eligible for copyright, but unfortunately it looks as if these are limited to text and not to photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Stefan, that's very helpful. Unfortunately I can't read it, but it gives me a place to start. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the same document in English. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There have been several amendments since 1985, the latest Portuguese WIPO version seems to be [[2]], incorporating all changes up until April 2008 (excluding a cybercrime law of 2009). I couldn't locate an English version. GermanJoe (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, GJ. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Files in "Masters of the Art Nouveau - Exhibition of the Budapest Museum of Applied Arts in 2013"

Some assistance is required with the contents of "Category:Masters of the Art Nouveau - Exhibition of the Budapest Museum of Applied Arts in 2013". I've just noticed that one of the files, "File:Vase Arthur Lakatos.jpg", is probably a copyright violation because the designer of the vase, Artúr Latakos, died in 1968 and Hungary copyright law adopts the 70 pma rule. Furthermore, freedom of panorama in Hungary extends only to works permanently displayed outdoors. The works in this category appear to be part of a temporary indoor exhibition. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Fredrik Rosing Bull

I'm not sure the images in this category are in public domain for Commons policies, since there's no hint they were published in the United States before 1920. The source links to the website of Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, but that's only a folder without copyright information.--Carnby (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The rule is they have to be published anywhere before 1923. The two photos are problematic, but the signature is clear in the US, since signatures are not copyrightable in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Rodrigo Bueno as a Child.JPG

I originally uploaded the file last year. The image was already the object of a file deletion request, but it was decided to be kept. When my Good Article Nomination of the article Rodrigo (musician) was passed I removed it, since the reviewer had a concern with the copyright status, on the review he wrote:

One final question: On the image of Rodrigo as a child, it says that the image is in the public domain in Argentina. While it does appear to be more than 25 years old, I don't see the evidence that it was published anywhere >20 years ago. If we can clarify this, I think we can promote this to GA. Any remaining issues are probably beyond the scope of GA. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 05:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The deletion of the file was previously discussed here and kept. Basically the reason is that it belongs to the archives of La Voz del Interior, and was published before Rodrigo became a star (more about it on the deletion page).--Rod840 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that the deletion discussion was dropped, but surely there is a way that we can actually verify the publication date of the image. See the warning under the Licensing section on the image's Commons page. The hyperlink to the La Voz archives isn't working for me. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 05:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You can see the photograph on this article to the right, under "Foto Galería". If you click on it, you'll see this page. I'm not aware of the date when the picture was originally published. I only know that La Voz included it on a piece about Chebere between 1979-1980. On the website, under the picture reads RODRIGO. Una fotografía de su infancia (Archivo) [RODRIGO. A photograph from his childhood (Archive)].

That's my question: How do we know that the image appeared in the Chebere article in 1979 or 1980 and why isn't that evidence found in the image description? The web link to the photo only mentions all rights reserved from 2000 on. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 19:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking for any version of that article online, but so far I couldn't. Probably the best thing would be to get rid of the pic. It's illustrative, but there's not enough info.--Rod840 (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the picture is definitively older than 25 years, and the site confirms that the source are the archives of La Voz, at the time I decided that it was enough to upload it. --Rod840 (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would be relevant to add it again to the article again, but after watching once more this interview, it can be used as a reference to the line that stated that Beatriz Bueno was also a songwriter (she wrote for Cuarteto Leo and La Mona Jiménez) and it also can be used as a reference to the Carozo Y Narizota broadcasts of Channel 13.--Rod840 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you would like to do. I think we can wrap this up if we resolve the copyright issue. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 19:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All solved, I put those back in the article and we can close too that thing with the copyright.--Rod840 (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue has been ever since ignored, and recently, the file was used on the version translated to the Spanish. It reminded me the doubt of the reviewer, and I think is about time to get a verdict. Now, my concerns are:

• Is the provided information enough?
• In view that I cannot get the exact publication year of the photograph, (even though that it is visible that it IS older than 25 years), is it recommendable to be deleted or shall we keep it?--Rod840 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

www.cereriaortiz.com User:Jaime Chilleron

This user has uploaded some images about candles watermarked with www.cereriaortiz.com. I don't know whether he's an employee of the wax factory or not, but the copyright status of these images is dubious in my opinion.--Carnby (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

All tagged with copyvio. Will be deleted shortly. Yann (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of proprietary software

Are these screenshots of proprietary google sketchup and makerware allowed? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Lmartin_iii Palosirkka (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Please create a mass deletion request. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Here you go Commons:Deletion requests/proprietary software by Lmartin iii. Thank you. Palosirkka (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Guys, there's no reason to delete anything, why not just remove the non-free toolbars fro the images? I just did it. Thow images with dialogs are OK to me - see Commons:De minimis. --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How to insert pictures with an acquired copyright.

Hy, I'm working as an internee at a federal institution in Belgium. I've been asked to create/modify the the Page concerning the Gouverneur of LIège. My Problem is, they gave me some pictures to insert and a bill where the institution acquired the rights to publish the pictures in Belgium and on the web. But I have no idea how I'm supposed to upload the file. Being completely new to the matter of copyrights I'd like some help from experienced Wikipedia authors.

Thank you for your help.

Frédéric Dejozé (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frédéric Dejozé (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 November 2013‎ (UTC))

Hi! Please follow these steps:

1. First you need to decide if the images are free enough to upload to the Commons. The images either have to be in the public domain, or the copyright owner has to agree to license them under a free licence such as {{Cc-by-3.0}} or {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} (click on the links for more information about these licences).
2. If the images are in the public domain, then upload them and place the {{Cc-zero}} or {{PD-author}} licence tag on the file description pages.
3. If the images are to be licensed under CC-BY-3.0 or CC-BY-SA-3.0, upload them and use one of these licence tags on the file description pages.
4. E-mail the evidence that the images are in the public domain or have been licensed under a free licence to permissions-commonswikimedia.org for verification. For information on this verification process, see "Commons:OTRS".

Feel free to post further messages here if there is anything that is not clear to you. Good luck! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oreo bags

• File:Mini Oreos, Downpatrick, September 2010.JPG
• File:Oreo biscuit, Indian Pack.jpg

These above images have recent artwork. Are above images subject to copyright? --George Ho (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the packaging illustrations are not de minimis. These should be nominated for speedy deletion as copyright infringements. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

License choice of derivatives

Denniss made a change to a license of an image's derivative I made. I'm not upset or anything, quite the opposite—I'd simply not thought about it before. The original image is CC BY 2.0. DerivativeFX allows me several options when creating the code for the derivative, and I almost always choose CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported. Is this completely wrong, then?

Also, Denniss added an attribution link, but my understanding of these licenses is that the attribution should include the person who made the derivative, so as not to make it seem like the original image's creator condones or created that derivative. As it stand currently, my derivative now says it should be attributed 100% (if you look in the licensing section) to the photographer. What if the photographer doesn't agree with my derivative? Shouldn't it say: "Mark Bonta / derivative by Keraunoscopia"? That's how I'm credited, say, on this youtube video here.

I should know this stuff, but I guess I don't! Thank you. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 03:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you create a derivative work of a CC-BY image, you are free to attach any license you like to the derivative work, so long as you comply with the terms of the original CC-BY license and your own license is compatible with the requirements of the original license. So, for example, you are free to license your derivative work as CC-BY-SA if you require users of your work to include an attribution that includes the attribution of the original work. In my opinion, if you have your heart set on licensing your derivative as CC-BY-SA, any of the following would be fine:

• {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Original by Mark Bonta, [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mb2boost/ mb2boost]}}
• {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Mark Bonta, [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mb2boost/ mb2boost] / derivative by [[User:Keraunoscopia|Keraunoscopia]]}}
• {{cc-by-sa-3.0|[[User:Keraunoscopia|Keraunoscopia]], original by Mark Bonta ([http://www.flickr.com/photos/mb2boost/ mb2boost])}}
• {{cc-by-sa-3.0|[[User:Keraunoscopia|Keraunoscopia]], based on original work by Mark Bonta ([http://www.flickr.com/photos/mb2boost/ mb2boost])}}
• etc.

—RP88 04:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No , you can't add a by-sa rstriction to an image originally just using a -by license, especially for a simple crop. Also for a simple crop no change of the license version is justified (from 2.0 to 3.0), this should only be used for a larger rework like in an image compilation (this is also the only place where we currently accept a change from -by to -by-sa because of the complicated license situation in mot of these compilations). Credit always goes to the original image author, not the one who made a simple crop, also a derivative work should never be tagged as self-made because many re-users not so handy in license stuff tend to attribute the uploader of the derivative and not the original author. --Denniss (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

But the whole reason this is an issue is that this isn't a simple crop. Keraunoscopia's derivative is a substantial change from the original, well above the threshold of originality, eligible for copyright protection in its own right. —RP88 09:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Cropping and/or altering color isn't a substantial change. Nothing that justifies altering the original license. --Denniss (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Altering colour could be copyrightable (e.g. colourising movies). Here, I'm not sure. But I think removing the intruding person as done here would be creative enough to attract copyright. Licensing is a separate issue. --Avenue (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In the US, at least, the Copyright Office took comments on whether colorizing a movie could be copyrightable and decided it was only because of the length of the movie. I don't think altering the color on a single image is copyrightable in the US, based on the report they produced at the time. Removing a person from a picture as was done in File:Emily Batty, Sea Otter Classic, 2011 (tone).jpg is certainly copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it is wise to assume that any user-contributed information is ineligible for copyright. This may cause problems if someone wishes to use the image in some country with a very low threshold. Commons contributors can always attach a free licence of their choice. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Complete recoloring is different from simple crops or minor adjustments to the color balance, they hardly generate a new copyright. Even if they generate a new copyright this can only be added to the existing copyright of the original and has to be compatible. Removing one person and adding another would be a new copyright generation as you significantly altered the original but you still have to attribute the original author and the license (if dfferent). --Denniss (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on the care need to be taken in proper attributing. See this example; original author is specified in author field, but the use of self template without mentioning the attribution parameter is confusing. And it happened in our project too. JKadavoor Jee 13:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the Self template comes from derivativeFX (which it shouldn't use unless in compliment with author=xxx for proper attribution of the original author). --Denniss (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the CC-BY-2.0 license allows you to create and reproduce any "Derivative Work" (as defined in the license) of the original Work, as long as you comply with the Work's license requirements. These include crediting the Original Author, giving a credit that identifies how the Work is used in the Derivative Work, keeping intact all copyright notices for the Work, and providing the title and URI associated with the original Work (if any). This is all from clauses 3b and 4b.

Clause 4a is a bit unclear, in that it hardly refers to Derivative Works at all, but because the Derivative Work includes (parts of) the Work I think it implicitly requires you to include the license of the original Work or its URI when you distribute or perform the Derivative Work. You also cannot restrict the recipient from exercising their rights to use the original Work under its license. But if your Derivative Work has copyrightable elements beyond those already present in the Work, there seems to be no requirement that these be licensed under the Work's license, under a compatible CC license, or indeed any license at all. I presume you can offer them under any license you like. If the license you choose differs from the original Work's license, reusers would then have to comply with both licenses.

So I believe you need to (among other things) say that the original work is licensed CC-BY, and link to that license (or include a copy of it). You cannot just say the derivative work is CC-BY-SA and not mention the original work's license.

I think Keraunoscopia's original upload was very close to complying with the license requirements. It linked to the description page for the original image (which includes a link to the license summary, which in turn links to the license text), and it mentions (in the upload log) that the original work is licensed Cc-by-2.0. If that mention had also linked to the license text, I think all would have been in order, but it did not.

Denniss cannot himself license Keraunoscopia's copyrighted aspects of the derivative work as CC-BY-2.0 (or anything else), so it would be good if Keraunoscopia made an edit confirming this license (or whatever other license he desires - e.g. CC-BY-SA - although that would make compliance more difficult for reusers). Also, currently the EXIF data says CC-BY-SA-3.0, while the page says CC-BY-2.0, which seems confusing. So it would be good to make them consistent too.

Of course IANAL, and I could be completely wrong. But that's my understanding. --Avenue (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I had read somewhere here that Commons discourage claiming copyright/attribution for minor edits from our own volunteers. But I can't remember that page. Many people edited my pictures; some people upload them separately and give links to originals. Some peopleupload over it, without claiming any rights. But I prefer to attribute them always. Any way I think Keraunoscopia's edit is enough to claim "derivation/adaption".

Suggestion on attribution: Give link to his Flickr profile page instead of the photo-stream. Glad to see the real name is used. So Mark Bonta, United States seems fine.

Suggestion on license: If Keraunoscopia choose to use a new license for the derivative work, he has to specify the license of the original work in source. Eg: Derived from File:Emily Batty, Sea Otter Classic, 2011.jpg, License CC BY 2.0 I see Avenue already said this point. JKadavoor Jee 11:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Commons discourage claiming copyright/attribution for minor edits" - but copyright doesn't need to be claimed, you get it whether you want it or not. If minor edits are released under CC0 it removes any doubt. ghouston (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you upload the new version with the same licence, that would probably count as releasing also your edits under it. Having a second licence is problematic, at least for bots, and gives no advantage, as the "minor edits" in most cases cannot be used separately from the original work. You might replace the licence template (and add just a mention/link of the original one), but that means you claim your changes are big enough. --LPfi (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Bing screenshot.png

File:Bing screenshot.png - I don't understand why it was speedy deleted. I've uploaded and tagged the file PD-inelegible basing on File:Windows 8 pre-login.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 8 pre-login.png, so I don't understand something. It's the most text plus derivative work from PD'ed File:Bing logo (2013).svg. --Rezonansowy (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello? Why nobody responding? --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Two admins deleted files with this name in the past, Fastily and Túrelio. The most direct route to challenge the deletion is to go back to Fastily and ask them to take another look as you believe {{PD-textlogo}} can apply. If Fastily is not around, then raise a request at Undeletion requests. In the past, I have found that Threshold of originality applied inconsistently with interpretations of what might be sufficiently creative being pretty subjective. It continues to give unpredictable outcomes. Having no access to the deleted file, I cannot give an opinion on the image itself. --Fæ (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DRAFT ShareAlike Statement of Intent

Yesterday Kat made a notice at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-November/007506.html on http://wiki.creativecommons.org/DRAFT_ShareAlike_Statement_of_Intent

Hope interesting. JKadavoor Jee 08:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

American Cryptogram Association logo

Can someone check this image: File:American_Cryptogram_Association_logo.png? When was it first published? Was it registered for copyright protection? The Yeti 21:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you specifically asking about that particular logo? The original black and white logo, with a blackletter typeface and different scytale (see [3]), appeared on the cover of Elementary Cryptanalysis: A Study of Ciphers and Their Solution by Helen Fouché Gaines. That book was published in 1939 and registered for copyright (A134084). However, it's copyright was not renewed and thus that particular black and white logo on the cover is now in the public domain and could be tagged with {{PD-US-not renewed}}. From what I've been able to determine the color logo with the subtle shadows, the new scytale, and Arial font is a post-1989 work. As such it will copyrighted for decades to come. —RP88 22:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, great info. I have the Dover edition of the book which does not contain the ACA logo. So, I guess I can upload the old logo from asalives.org here. The Yeti 04:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Serial housing (Plattenbau) and FOP

Several deletion requests show the lack of consensus on Commons concerning images of serial housing / Plattenbau in countries without FOP. Examples of kept nominations include serial housing in Russia (one more), Slovenia, Ukraine (one more) and France, while deleted ones have occured in Kazakhstan, Slovenia and Ukraine.

The issue with serial housing or Plattenbau is the application of COM:TOO and COM:DM, which often corresponds to the arguments "standard simple housing / any building is original enough" and "nothing copyrightable here / all buildings are copyrighted". Another point is whether COM:TOO and COM:DM should be considered as Commons policies / common sense rules or if they are limited to only to countries where these principles are explicitly defined in the law (in the latter case, Commons:TOO#Architecture and Commons:DM#Guidelines do not make sense and should be moved to the sections on respective countries). Both of these rules seems relevant as these houses were explicitly created to be simple and avoid any originality or creativity, and, for example, Khrushchev houses are likely to have the simplest possible design for a housing block.

A particular issue for Soviet Union is that most of serial housing was designed by project institutes as technical projects and not by particular architects or groups of architects. Moreover, it seemed to be a common practice in Soviet Union to transfer copyright from author(s) to governmental organisation(s) who have ordered the work in question, and in this case author may only require attribution (this is an argument from a Ukrainian court ruling, the only one on FOP I am aware of in Ukraine, but copyright laws were similar all over Soviet Union). This makes that the copyright was most likely transferred to a governmental organisation, which may now be defunct or reorganised. Unfortunately, the court decision does not clearly state if this organisation does or does not own the rights on such works.

To sum up, I would like to know if there is any reasonable guideline on which images of serial housing are considered OK or if it more or less randomly depends on people involved in discussing and closing the nomination. Thanks — NickK (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As this question [4] recently led to me getting blocked by Yann (and the block then reversed by the community consensus), I appreciate that you have started a discussion about it and will be more than happy if it gets properly answered. In my opinion, we should not assume that the Plattenbau architecture is not copyrightable without an appropriate evidence. For example, we had a case of Savsko naselje (Ljubljana, Slovenia) [5] that has been deleted by INeverCry as non-free. An undeletion request was then posted,[6] but it turned out that the blocks (which look just as any other apartment blocks)[7] are protected as cultural heritage [8] because they are quite original and because of the skyline they create, and the UDR was rejected. Due to this, it is my opinion that no one really knows which buildings are copyrighted and which not. Therefore, as long as there is no evidence of any threshold of originality, we must per COM:PRP presume that all architecture is copyrighted. I've just yesterday also read this article, where it is discussed how people believe they can glaze their balconies whatever way they want, but the cultural and legal reasons require the owners to use a unified design. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Similarly in Yugoslavia many public buildings were built by youth work actions or simply by the comunity. I also don't think apartment buildings in Savsko naselje are nececerly copyrighted just because of the skyline they create. Many old town's skylines in Slovenia are also protected as cultural heritage. I can't see how a building without some distinguishable architecture could be copyrighted. --Sporti (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the plan had to be drawn by someone, and these buildings may be seen as derivatives of the plan (per [9] (pg. 65), the author of an architectural work is usually the one who has drawn the plan). As to [10], we're discussing apartment blocks that have been designed by known architects (like Savsko naselje), but anonymous works are copyrighted too. The cited article explicitly mentions 'family houses and other apartment buildings' as 'architectural works'. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Here (pg. 20) is a discussion of originality in the field of architecture in the United States. It is emphasised that "the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice." --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So are buildings as simple as this one (center) copyrighted or not? --Sporti (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to specify that this thread is not to discuss original housing that is protected as cultural heritage but to discuss a simple serial housing that is considered neither original nor valuable enough to protect. I am not sure if being protected as a cultural heritage monument is a reasonable criterion of originality but it should be enough to consider a building definitely above threshold of originality (in case a building is protected because of its architectural orginality and not because a notable person lived there). However, the situation becomes not that obvious when we are speaking of serial housing that is considered neither original nor part of cultural heritage, which represents a large part of housing in former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and other post-Communist countries and is identically similar from one city to another, like Khrushchev houses — NickK (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that at least these cases below where there is no copyright. Yann (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• There is no architect; i.e. if I build my own house, I find it difficult to claim that my house has a copyright (the builder is not an architect, but has the technical skills to build a house).
• The buildings are built identical several times.
• The building is of technical design, i.e. factory, power plant, etc.

I generally agree with your criteria, but I think a few clarifications are needed. The second and the third criterion would work well only if these buildings were purely functional. For the second one, if it is a copy of Atomium, it would still remain copyrighted as a copy was installed for an artistic purpose, but if several local counsils used the same project or the same design for serial housing / administrative / industrial buildings, it should be reasonable to assume there are no copyright problems with them. The third criterion is generally OK, but it should not be the case of, say, Müllverbrennungsanlage Spittelau, which has a definite creative element — NickK (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, a copy of the Atomium would be a copyright violation, so the point is irrelevant. A copy of a copyrighted work is a copyright violation, so its image cannot obviously be uploaded to Commons. For your example, in order to get a copyright, the creative element should not have an utilitarian use, only a decorative motive: File:Four solaire odeillo.jpg is certainly creative, but I don't think it got a copyright. Yann (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that this falls within the definition of functional / utilitarian vs creative — NickK (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the utilitarian argument would work in some countries, but it was rejected for a bridge in France on the grounds that "even a simple nail clipper is copyrightable". ghouston (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

At the same time, a housing block in France was not considered copyrightable, and I have found another cases where such criteria as untypical shape and an architectural award were considered as criteria of originality. I do not think that serial housing has ever received an architectural award and usually has a perfectly geometric shape, and has never attracted attention because of its architectural creativity (while Pont de Recouvrance probably has attracted some attention for its architectural qualities) — NickK (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume the vast majority of buildings never receive architectural awards, so if that was actually a requirement then the problem would be drastically reduced. The Pont de Recouvrance may be an interesting looking bridge, but it seems to me that all of its architectural qualities were purely functional. But if anything other than perfect geometric shapes is copyrightable, then it's not about functionality, but about the non-copyrightable nature of geometric shapes, and somebody may even argue that the arrangement of windows or whatever makes the geometric building copyrightable. ghouston (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The argument used that a building is definitely above TOO if it receives an architectural award, I hope there is little doubt here. In case of Pont de Recouvrance, probably further research is needed to show whether it was ever considered non-trivial from architectural point of view or not — NickK (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Yann's first bullet point. Surely it doesn't matter who designed the house, whether they're an architect, computer programmer, fisherman, the house's owner or their friend from school, etc. What matters is whether the design is sufficiently creative to have a copyright. If it is, then we need permission from the designer to host photos of it, unless it's in a country with FOP for buildings. --Avenue (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And I can't see why "The buildings are built identical several times" would make them ineligible either. Copyright doesn't stop the copyright holder from making or licencing as many copies as they like. ghouston (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that this most likely this concerns "standard" or "serial" projects, that were reproduced in large numbers more or less independently, like serial housing, standard projects of railway stations etc. Of course, common sense should be used here — NickK (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Vector Oreo.svg

• 

Is this image copyrightable? --George Ho (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The SVG file surely is. Why are you asking?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this work belong to the uploader? If so, is the derivative subject to copyright of original artwork of Oreo cookies? --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Likely PD-No notice in the US; could take some digging to prove it, but the refs in the Oreo article on WP should be a good start. Dankarl (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP article says that Oreo was published in 1912. --George Ho (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The references in the article, particularly the Indy Week article, suggest the current design dates from 1952 (although there is evidence that it is even newer than that). —RP88 21:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Art copyright assumption.

I have been trying to figure out a copyright status like {{PD-US-unpublished}} but for art. I'm sorry if this has been asked, but I couldn't find the issues in the archive.

I have run across at least 3 images of Art work where the author is unknown and the date of creation is unknown, but the person in the artwork is known and that person died before 1893 and there were never any photographs taken of the person.

The problem I have is there is no evidence that the painting was created before 1893 nor that it was created during the lifetime of the subject. Theoretically the painting could have been made last week.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. File:Joseph_Smith,_Sr.jpg is a painting of a person who died September 14, 1840. The Author is completely unknown and I have not been able to find a publication of this image. There has never been an phtograpic image of Joseph Smith, Sr. found.

So I guess in a nut shell, my question is, it is ok to assume that an painting of a person was made when they are alive, especially when no photographs of that person ever existed. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 16:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No. There's brand-new paintings being done of Jesus and Socrates and Confucius all the time, so no, data of the person pictured doesn't tell us that the painting is old enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Heinz products

I have uploaded two pics of ketchup and mustard by Heinz. I have tagged them with {{Trademarked}} like other similar uploads, but if there are still problems, I will (partially) blur the images.--Carnby (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Outlined drawing of churches: copyright infringement?

I drew this church from scratch by myself, but it has been considered a copyright infringement, because in France there's no freedom of panorama. The funny thing is that I've never been to Ronchamp and that the drawing, which is not a faithful copy of the original as it is a very simplified version, was made by myself at home, copying it from an art book. What do you think about?--Carnby (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's an FoP issue, the question is whether your drawing is a derived work of the photo(?) (presumably without a free licence) in the book you copied it from. Since you said you created it that way, I suppose it is. ghouston (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Would be "derived work" also a personal interpretation of a pic, drawn from scratch? The book is indeed copyrighted, but I thought the only possible infringement was to take a faithful copy (a scan or a photo) of the images and a derived work to manipulate the faithful copy of the image itself.--Carnby (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A derived work doesn't need to be an exact copy, e.g., a translation of a book to another language is a derived work, even though it's not a copy but a personal interpretation. I don't really know much about drawings in practice though. ghouston (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, the image has been deleted. I won't upload images copied by copyrighted books anymore.--Carnby (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you draw the church from a different point of view than the photo, then it isn't a derived work of the photo, although it remains a derived work of the church.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And, since the church itself is subject to copyright laws, this drawing from a different point of view would be also a copyright infringement, wouldn't it?--Carnby (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Options for licensing company materials

My company just put out a press release for a report for which I was one of the authors. The report can be downloaded from our website, for which content is (generally) available under a CC BY-NC 3.0 license. I want to use one of the graphs (which is also in the press release) in a Wikipedia article. Although I am the author of the graph, the copyright is probably with the company. Does this mean I have to bother my superiors and ask them for permission in order to be able to use the graph? As I am also one of the webmasters, I could add an CC BY-SA license to the newsarticle holding the graph, but I doubt that would have any legal value. What are my options? --Weef (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is the copyright of the company; you absolutely must get someone with the authority to authorize use of that image to so release it. I don't know how big your company is or how it's set up, but that means your superiors, and while I'm hard-pressed to tell you to go above their heads, it really needs to be someone with the clear authority to release it.

Honestly, if you hadn't posted here, adding a CC BY-SA license on the website would probably been enough to put us in the legal clear, but since you've made it clear that you don't have the authority to license works of the company, we can't depend on it. (That is, the company can be held to transactions generally only if the other person reasonably believes the employee can enter into it; no buying the Wal-Mart building from a cashier.) Then again, since there was no exchange, I could see a court revoking the license going forward if the company can establish the license was given by someone with clearly no authority to do so. (Warning, IANAL and the last sentence especially starts to get into wild speculation.) In any case, the proper thing to do is find someone with the clear authority to license it this way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually the company isn't that big, but I don't want to have to send my superior a formal e-mail asking for his permission on something that is quite trivial to him. I have done it in the past, but I do not want to keep boring him with such things. Would it be enough to simply notify him that I am putting a CC BY-SA on the press release(s)?--Weef (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the unilateral step of simply declaring a license. After clearing this situation, perhaps you could suggest to whomever makes the decisions that by default the company press releases be made CC-by-sa (with an appropriate statement on the website to that effect), and any releases where a CC license is not desired be individually marked as All Rights Reserved. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) is right about the legalities of the case. But why did you release publicity material under a NC license? The Yeti 05:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

CC BY-NC is the default for our website's contents. We did not declare a license for the publicity material, so (in my opnion) it defaults to the CC BY-NC of the website. I think I will just ask permission to license all press releases and newsarticles on the website under a CC BY-SA and make that adjustment on the website.--Weef (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Simply spoken with adding a CC-BY-SA you give away intelectual property of the company to the public - i.e. reuse for commercial purposes is allowed - and you give away the controll where the material may be used - i.e. no notification is required for reuse. If your employment contract not allows you to do this, then you cant do it. The same applies to relicencing your companys website, if your contract not allows you to waive companies intelectual property then dont do it. But better ask a lawyer on this. I dont think there is much to discuss here. --Martin H. (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Obiously I am not allowed to give away intelectual property of the company, otherwise I would not have opened this discussion. My plan now (as I stated above) is to ask permission to someone who does have such authority to put a CC-BY-SA license on (all) press releases and other news articles. My main concern is whether this would be legally binding and whether such a separation on our website would be clear/practical.--Weef (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The license applies only to the licensed content, you can publish some content on a website under a free license and keep the rest of the content unfree. Regarding your second question, how about reading the FAQs or the license? http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F and section 7 of the full license text at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. --Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was if it is a possibility to mention in the website's disclaimer that press releases come with a CC-BY-SA license and all other content is licensed as CC BY-NC. If I am correct, the option you are describing requires to add a CC-BY-SA license to each press release. Wouldn't this still (officially) require approval from someone with the proper authority every time content is released? --Weef (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about pros and cons of uploading PD images to EN-WP vs. Commons

I'd like to know some reasons why I should not, in the future, simply upload to the EN WP instead of Commons. I'm asking because while uploading to either is just as simple, the time needed to reply to some of the deletion requests and then having to request an undeletion, requires an unreasonable amount of time. In addition, the basis of many of the DRs and deletions simply relies on assuming bad faith, against guidelines, which implies a natural desire to delete images rather than keep them in the Commons. I don't expect to use this question to have anyone second-guess any of the deletions, but I'll simply give a few examples to support what I just said. What I really want is a direct pro and con comparison if anyone can give some.

• Ignoring clear PD evidence and ABF: for this image, where the deciding editor simply ignored proof and stated their ABF as part of their decision.

• Blitz deletions based on cut-and-paste rationales which make no sense: ignoring the Precautionary Principle, and more ABF

• Stating untrue facts for a DR: like this one, which did show both sides of a photo, and then simply disagreeing with the source and image description.

• Violating 7-day rule by speedy deleting and totally ignoring support details

• Relying on or ignoring copyfraud notices by Getty, which have been proven to be meaningless.

Over the the last few days there have been 14 more of my PD images tagged or deleted based on some of the above-type rationales, often cut-and-pasted, with as little as 1-minute between them. So I'd like to see if anyone can explain the pros and cons, which is all I expect. Thanks for any feedback. --Light show (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• There is no difference between uploading to Wikipedia or to Commons: if you don't provide sufficient or correct information, the images will be deleted regardless of which project you upload them to. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Derek Acorah 2013 2013-11-21 01-05.jpeg

I am not sure the uploader User:Martinjcooper of this image (File:Derek Acorah 2013 2013-11-21 01-05.jpeg) is the creator. It is a professional quality photograph with credit only to a new user with no other contributions and no information on user page. It was used on an article in wikipedia W:Derek Acorah by the same user/editor W:User:Martinjcooper who appears to be a single purpose account that has made edits without an understanding of policy on WP. This leads me to question the user's understanding of Commons policy and copyright. This is only a question as I have not found the image elsewhere with other attribution. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you asked User:Martinjcooper about this image? Ruslik (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just did, on his Commons user talk page, thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Cover page of "Chander Pahar", a novel by Bibhutibhusan Banerjee.jpg

w:File:Cover page of "Chander Pahar", a novel by Bibhutibhusan Banerjee.jpg can we move to here. It was published in 1937. And author was died 1950. So it is {{PD-India}}. Jayantanth (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Did the author of the novel also produce the cover artwork? If not, to determine if the artwork is now in the public domain, you need to find some evidence of the identity of the artist and when he or she passed away, or if the artist is truly anonymous. Is there any information on the artwork itself (e.g., a signature or initials) or in the book? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition, I noticed that the image is the "[s]canned cover page of Signet Press 16th edition, November 1988". Is there any evidence that this is simply a reproduction of the original cover published in 1937? If it is a new cover added by Signet Press, it is probably still copyrighted. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no information about Cover art work, I have no evidence about death artworker of cover page. As per my knowledge this not may be a reproduction of the original cover published in 1937.Jayantanth (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case, there is insufficient evidence that the cover artwork is in the public domain, and PD-India applies to it. We cannot transfer the file to the Commons. It should remain at the English Wikipedia and be used under a fair-use justification. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the cover (unless the author was also the cover artist), but the book itself would likely not be PD in the United States, since it would still have been under copyright in India in 1996 and its U.S. copyright would have been restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Using CC-BY-SA in a commercial book

Hello,

I have a problem regarding CC-BY-SA license. I'm writing a handbook in which I want to use pictures under that license. Would the book be "derivative work", that I have to distribute under the same CC-BY-SA license?

best regards Maciej Troszyński

No; the book is a like a collective work, which includes other CC-BY-SA-licensed images/works. The book is not a derivative. --Túrelio (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of INE mark

I would like to upload the (now obsolete) INE (Istituto Nazionale per l'Esportazione, then Marchio Nazionale per l'Esportazione) mark (here). I found a vector version of the mark on the Internet, where the author clearly says he gives up all rights. Thus it should be considered public domain, shouldn't it? Besides, the mark is made only by simple characters, stars and lines. May I upload a slightly modified version of that vector image on Commons?--Carnby (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

When was this mark created and published and who is the author? Ruslik (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In the 1920's by the Istituto Nazionale per l'Esportazione (a sort of government agency of Fascist Italy, no longer existing).--Carnby (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That is probably fine. It is most likely below the U.S. threshold of copyrightability, and even if it is copyrightable in Italy, sounds like its protection would have expired, unless there was a particular person known to have designed it (then it would 70 years after that person died). The SVG might have been separately copyrightable, but it sounds like that part is licensed or is PD-author. I'd probably tag it with {{PD-shape}} for the U.S. side of things, possibly add {{Anonymous-EU}}, and definitely add {{PD-author}} for SVG author's contribution. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, is it OK (link)?--Carnby (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bilder von de:Albert Kahn

Aktuell findet in Bonn eine Ausstellung statt mit Bilder von Albert Kahn. Dementsprechend sind in aktuellen Meldungen relativ gute Bilder von ihm verlinkt. Ich bin kein Spezialist was Urheberrechtsfragen angeht, aber die Aufnahmen entstanden meist noch vor dem ersten Weltkrief und der Urheber verstarb 1940. Wie verhält es sich da aktuell mit den Bildrechten? Beispiele: [11] [12] Dürften diese aus den genannten Seiten importiert werden? --Slick (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour, Albert Kahn n'est pas le créateur des photos. En général, on considère que chaque photographe (aussi appelé « opérateur ») est le créateur. Même si celles de ces photos qui ont été publiées avant 1923 sont dans le domaine public aux États-Unis, la politique de Commons veut qu'on tienne compte aussi du droit d'auteur dans le pays d'origine. Or, la durée des droits d'auteur, dans la plupart des pays d'Europe, court à partir de la date de la mort de l'auteur concerné. Cela dépend donc du photographe qui a créé chaque photo. Les oeuvres de quelques-uns de ces photographes sont dans les domaines publics en Europe, par exemple celles de Fernand Cuville (qu'elles proviennent de son travail pour l'armée ou de son travail financé par Kahn) et celles d'Auguste Léon, et elles sont acceptées sur Commons. Les oeuvres d'autres photographes ne sont pas encore dans les domaines publics en Europe et en principe ne seraient pas acceptées sur Commons, bien que certaines le soient quand même, par exemple celle-ci de Léon Busy. Enfin, l'année du décès de certains photographes, comme Stéphane Passet, ne semble pas connue. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Slick (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sand sculptures

I took this photo of a sand sculpture a few months ago. I just wanted to check that it passes FoP muster. It is no longer on public display, but I suspect that is because it was dismantled -mattbuck (Talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/09#Freedom_of_Panorama_for_transient_sculptures for a recent discussion. ghouston (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Most likely, since this was in the UK, they would have only had permission from the local council to display the sculpture for a limited period of time, so I'd say unless it reached the end of its lifetime before that time expired, it was temporary. Since we don't know for sure if it survived until its time expired, and we don't even know of any legal precedent for transient sculptures in the UK, we can't say with much certainty that FoP applies. ghouston (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The salient point would be whether the sculpture still existed after the exhibition where the photo was taken, e.g. if was somehow transported intact to another location. If it was destroyed at the end of the exhibition (which seems likely), its exhibition would seem to be "permanent" in the sense required for FOP. It doesn't have to have been destroyed before the end of the exhibition to qualify. --Avenue (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

How to attribute CC-BY-SA photos?

Not a dead horse, since I still couldn't find a good, practical explanation in response to an @ I received. A game designer wants to use a picture File:Szkieleteor in krakow.JPG in the game and associated promo materials (banners, posters), but he doesn't want to add CC-BY-SA texts directly next to the image (it wouldn't be feasible, apparently). He is unsure what he needs to do to use the license correctly - can he just list the license and attribution in the game manual or game website? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Two images from MS

I think (and some others) that:

• w:en:File:Xbox One logo.svg
• w:en:File:New MSN.svg

file are simple shapes, gradients and some text, just like in File:Windows 7 logo and wordmark.svg (DR). I post here because this make to me and I prefer to make sure that to you too. --Rezonansowy (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

PATENT COPYRIGHT RULES

The UK Intellectual Property Office presents their rules covering Copyright for Patent Specifications at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-other-faq/c-other-faq-type/c-other-faq-type-patspec.htm

Quote< Patent specifications published before 1 August 1989 Copyright in these belongs to the Crown but in normal circumstances no steps would be taken to enforce that copyright (notice of this was given in our Official Journal (Patents) on 25 June 1969). You would be allowed to copy these patent specifications freely but on the understanding that if the privilege is abused, for instance by copying for the purpose of selling them on, then the government may take action.

This means that you may freely copy UK patent specifications for the purpose of ‘disseminating the information contained in them’ >Quote

Why should such copying of a Copyright Specification for use in a Wikipedia article be subject to a Deletion request for 'Suspected copyright violation!' ?

Ref at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VB_UK_Patent_883870.jpg

Please advise Tfitzp 13:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, contrary to your claim in the description, this is not your own work. So, the source-entry is wrong. If you had provided the proper source and the above posted information, the image might not have been tagged for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice = Tfitzp 10:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of industrial buildings

Hello,

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Elektrarna Brestanica.JPG was closed as not restored. However there were various decisions upto now (Category:Deletion requests of industrial buildings). I understood that industrial buildings do not have a copyright, because three are utilitarian designs, not works of art. I think we didn't make consistent decisions here. Opinions? Yann (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Utilitarian designs are exempt from copyright in some countries but not in other countries. Whether purely utilitarian buildings are subject to copyright or not probably varies from country to country. In Sweden, I suspect the main requirement is to determine whether two different architects are likely to construct two identical buildings independently of each other. If this is likely to happen, then there would probably be no copyright for the building, whereas in other cases the building would probably be copyrighted. This is the most important criterion for other utilitarian objects such as lamps, chairs and clothes, which have sometimes been found to be copyrighted by Swedish courts. Other countries may define the originality criterion for buildings differently. More importantly, the question is whether a photo of a building violates the copyright of the building, not whether the building is copyrighted in the first place. Even if a French building is copyrighted as a whole, you might find that it is possible to take photos of several of the rooms inside the building as you do not see any artistic elements in those rooms. For the typical Commons photo, the question would therefore be whether the outer façade is artistic or not. Whether the building as a whole is copyrighted or not is mainly a question that you need to answer if you want to construct an identical building. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point above "the question is whether a photo of a building violates the copyright of the building, not whether the building is copyrighted in the first place." And it is exactly because of this argument that I argue for keeping some pictures. I think that for violating the copyright of a building, a picture needs to represent a sizable portion of that building.

Now, about your first point, two companies never make exactly the same car. Yes there are no copyright because there are mainly utilitarian. I would argue that they may also be works of art. How are cars different than "lamps, chairs and clothes" regarding copyright, comparing with architecture? Yann (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No idea. Courts in Sweden have found various lamps, chairs and clothes to be copyrighted artistic works, so it is likely that some cars also are copyrighted artistic works in Sweden. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library

Are images from this library {{PD-USGov}}? Also, does the library distribute images from random sources, making it more difficult to figure out where any given image comes from? See for example File:John F. Kennedy, turkey pardon..jpg which is claimed to come from there. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Their website points users in the direction of this page, here, which notes that "Generally, materials produced by Federal agencies are in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission. However, not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain. Some materials have been donated or obtained from individuals or organizations and may be subject to restrictions on use." They also say that "you may consult our reference staff for details on specific items. We are aware of donor restrictions applicable to our collections, but we cannot confirm copyright status for any item." Hchc2009 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There will be many images in the presidential libraries taken by White House staff photographers -- they are, as you know, PD. There will be many others that are taken by members of the press or the public. They are not. I would give you good odds that this is a staff image, because a press image should have credit for the photographer or the source paper or news agency. Good odds, though do not pass our "significant doubt" test. It's very much a morass -- even several of the official White House painted portraits are under copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Mihovi Lovrić.jpg

I need help with providing information about Mihovil Lovrić.jpg. I downloaded the source image from the stated source location, cut it up, and uploaded it here under the terms of its' original license. According to EugeneZelenko, it's missing information about its' author, source, and/or license, if I understood correctly, but the information is there. What I am missing, if anything? -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Eugene's concern, which is correct, is that you are not the author of the image and the source is not the one given. At http://hr.metapedia.org/m/images/9/95/Jo%C5%A1aMija.jpg (link prohibited by Commons spam filter) we can see an uncropped version which includes the name of a professional photographer in Zagreb -- the name is very difficult to make out, both because of the quality of the image and the unfamiliar -- to me -- script used. It might be "Sj. Relwiine", but that could be far from correct. The Croatian law is that images whose author died in 1949 or later are still copyrighted. There is an exception for photographs published before 1971. Therefore, in order to have this image remain on Commons, you will have to show that either the photographer died before 1949 or that the image was published before 1971. Since the version we have was copied from a formal studio portrait and does not appear to be scanned from a newspaper or magazine, the latter is probably not applicable. For more information see Commons:Copyright_rules by territory - full#Croatia..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 03:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have requested the interpretation of the State Department for Intellectual Property. As per the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, I am the author of the modification; however, the original author needs to be listed as well. The original author is probably the person who applied the GNU Free Documentation License and not the photographer. I am the source of the modification and not Metapedia. The license is the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 and not 1.2, but Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow that specific version to be listed as the license. -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand any of that -- this is not a question of technicalities of licensing, but the very simple one of not having a license from the photographer. The crop that you made to the image does not have a copyright. The original author is certainly the photographer -- copies, crops, and uploads do not give rise to an additional copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Then how come the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Croatia keeps millions, and published thousands, of photographs of citizens of the Republic of Croatia provided by those citizens without permission from their respective photographers and similar personal photographs are published in newspaper obituaries etc.? -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Because they can. You can get quite a distance based on "they won't sue us", even if Commons won't depend on that. Newspapers might have some fair use right or something here. Nations frequently can't be sued; at best it's complex, and involves suing the most powerful organization around, for what in the case of personal photographs is going to bring a pittance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers do not have a fair use right in the Republic of Croatia. However, both have a right to do so as per Catch-22 – Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing. – which is high above the Constitution in the legal system of the Republic of Croatia. This is such common knowledge that the Constitution doesn't doesn't state which the highest legal act in the Republic of Croatia is. -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have received a reply from Državni zavod za intelektualno vlasništvo (DZIV) – the State Department for Intellectual Property – of the Republic of Croatia. For the photograph, they say that the author of the photograph needs to be listed in good faith as far as it is readable from the photograph in order to protect their – and their inheritors' – moral rights in accordance with Articles 12 and 15 of Zakon o autorskom pravu i srodnim pravima (ZAPSP) – the Law on Authorship Rights and Related Rights. However, according to them, I am the author of the processed image which I uploaded and the copyright holder in relation to Article 6, paragraph 1 of Zakon o autorskom pravu i srodnim pravima (ZAPSP) – the Law on Authorship Rights and Related Rights. -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems the subject and the uploader are relatives. Anyway, a permission from the photographer is required. JKadavoor Jee 15:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Neven Lovrić has uploaded the file again. I have tagged it with permissions. Neven Lovrić: we need permission from the copyright holder of the photograph, what you have done is completely irrelevant, the person who took the photo (or owns the copyright) must legally give permission for anyone to use it under a free license. Liamdavies (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This is now becoming vandalization as the file has been marked in accordance with the instructions provided by Državni zavod za intelektualno vlasništvo (DZIV) – the State Department for Intellectual Property. The person on the photograph was – apparently – killed by the State Security Service of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, so it cannot be excluded that repetitive requests for deletion of this image have a political background.

-- Neven Lovrić (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

In Yugoslavia, the copyright on photographs lasted for 25 years after the publication.[13] (Art. 83, 84) I think this could be relevant, because Mihovil Lovrić died in 1976. If it was not published, it is per Art. 88 protected for 50+1 years p.m.a., extending to 70+1 years p.m.a if it was still copyrighted on the day when the new copyright act was passed in Croatia (i.e. photographs of authors who died in 1949 or later are still copyrighted if not published before 1971). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC) P.S.: I see this has already been explained by Jim above, so you may treat my comment as a confirmation of his words. In addition, even if the copyright already expired, the work could still be protected with the publishers' right for 25 years since the first publication (Art. 146 of the 2011 act).[14] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Photographers Arjalew and Oricelly?

Hello,

Could you please help finding more information about Arjalew? According to [15], he was a photographer with a studio in Paris between 1900 and 1920. Oricelly was active at least from 1885 until 1914. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And also Paul Boyer (1871-19..), French photographer. I couldn't find his date of death. Is he old enough so that his work can be included here? Yann (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to wonder about the 1871 birth date for Boyer... I've seen references that Boyer took over an established studio in 1886 (another says 1888). Seems barely possible he did that as a teenager. Although this book seems to give dates of 1870 - 1908 (hard to tell for sure in snippet view), but also not sure if that was just when his track was lost. this book has an advertisement saying Boyer opened a branch at a 'lHotel de Femina in 1908. It describes him as a former student of the École des Beaux-Arts, and "still young" though a "Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur" for 16 years. So maybe the birth year is correct. But if he died that year... you'd think it'd be well known, with obituaries, etc. I did run across this account where he was named in a British court case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful. Searching for "Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur" Paul Boyer gives a reference in geneanet.org, where dates may be avalable, but it needs an account (BOYER (Paul-Anatole-Marie-Joseph), photographe, chevalier de la Légion d'honneur, fils de Charles Boyer, architecte à Hyères (Var), et de Séraphine Grec). This information comes from the book Panthéon de la Légion d'honneur. vol. 2, by T. Lamathière. Yann (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I created Creator:Paul Boyer. Yann (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you confirm those life dates? I did find this reference, Bulletin des lois de la République Franc̜aise, Volume 44 from 1892, which states: M. Boyer (Paul-Anatole-Marie-Joseph), photographe à Paris; inventeur de la lampe Èclair pour l'emploi du magnésium dans la photographie; médaille d'or à l'exposition le 1889; a participé à l'exposition de Moscou. There is a Russian Language professor named Jean Paul Marie Boyer (1864 - 1949), who was president of a language school in Paris from 1908 to 1937 it looks like, but who I think was employed there much earlier than 1908. I don't think they are the same person, but the photographer seems generally well-known and it would be odd that he would die without it being written about. But, references do seem to vanish in about 1908. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That biographical notice from Lamathière's Panthéon can be read on Gallica: [16]. But it says that P.-A.-M.-J. Boyer was born in 1861. So, it may not be the same person. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

1861 makes much more sense as a birth date than does 1871. That's definitely the person in question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Yes, your are right. Thanks for correcting the template. Pour info, the magazine Musica that you cite above is available at [17]. Yann (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Carl Lindberg: I created en:Paul Boyer (photographer), which needs proofreading. Thanks again for your help. Yann (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Also Louis Martin, French photographer active around 1905. Yann (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Also Foulsham & Banfield, English photographers (active 1900s-1920s). Yann (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Banfield would appear to be Arthur Clive Banfield (1875-1965). The other is a Frank Foulsham... did run across an entry from the 1911 census saying a Frank Foulsham, age 35 and born in 1876, was a manager of photography in London. Seems likely that would be him. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot. So not old enough for us.

What about G. Piprot, photographer and publisher [18]? I can't find any date. Yann (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

One more: Roger Sazerac, French photographer. Yann (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

PDB imaging of protein database picture - how do I properly say why I can post this image?

I've noticed a lot of pages containing PDB images (protein database) from RCSB. I know that they offer the data to anyone and is listed without copyright restrictions but I don't know how to fill out the uploading file properly. How would I properly write on the wiki how I would have the right to publish this?

http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/policies_references.html Above shows copyright free

Put a link to that website in the "Permissions" field of the {{Information}} template, and apply the {{PD-author}} licence tag to the images. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

mBio Content

I was intrigued by the description of the visualizing complex science project in this press release, http://www.plos.org/plos-announces-finalists-for-the-accelerating-science-award-program-2/. It appears that multimedia files from OA PMC articles were pulled in and placed into Wikimedia commons. When I went to see content from mBio, I saw some indication that there were discrepancies in the license http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:License_mismatch_mBio_-_PMC3000542.png. It looks like the Wikimedia page was created in November of 2012, and this known issue was resolved in the content in late December of 2012. I wanted to reach out to you and see whether it would be possible for this issue to be resolved now that the data has been cleaned up.

Thanks in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackenbush13 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 17:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)