This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Je souhaite uploader une image qui n'est pas de ma création et qui n'est sous aucune licence

Bonjour,

Je suis nouveau ici et je rédige depuis peu l'article Français portant sur le jeu The Talos Principle. Je souhaite uploader une image afin d'illustrer l'infobox de mon article seulement j'ai un soucis avec le processus d'upload qui m'impose de renseigner une licence de partage.

L'image que je souhaite uploader a été obtenue depuis le Dropbox entretenu par Croteam avec leur permission (obtenue via une conversation privée depuis leur page Facebook officielle). Quelle option dois-je sélectionner au moment de l'upload pour ne pas risquer de voir mon image supprimée ?

La précédente image que j'avais uploadé provenait de la page Anglaise traitant de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talos_Principle. Elle s'est vue supprimée un instant après l'upload, d'où ma confusion et mon inquiétude actuelle.

La personne chez Croteam a répondu cela quand je lui ai demandé sous quelle licence étaient les images de leur Dropbox : "This is picture made by ourselves, robot is our own 3D model and cat is a pet from our level designer. Therefore, we didn't use any 3rd party assets for which we would need to obtain license. We give you permission to use this pictures freely in your Wikipedia article."

Cordialement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerizer (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 January 2015‎ (UTC)

@Gamerizer: Désolé que personne n’avait vous répondu avant aujourd’hui—et je m’excuse pour mon mauvais français. Il ne suffit pas ici qu’on donne la permission d’utiliser un image à Wikipedia. Nous devons une licence « libre », permettant tout le monde d’utiliser l’image pour n’importe quelles fins : voir COM:Licensing. (On peut exiger que les réutilisateurs donne crédit, comme COM:CC-BY-SA.) S’il vous plaît demander a Croteam qu’ils envoiaient un e-mail à COM:OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), donnant une licence approprié : quelqu’un là vérifia les infos en confiance et délivrera un « billet OTRS » comme preuve de l’autorisation.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Image uploaded - Nominated for deletion

Hello, I've uploaded this image -File:Dr. Hassan Saadat.jpg and didn't put the necessary tag for it because I'm conflicted whether I should use PD-Old or PD-Scan. Please take note that this picture was taken more than 70 years ago. according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory it states "photos, films and two dimensional artistic works are protected for 50 years starting from the end of the publication year, after which they are in public domain." in Kuwait. How should I proceed because I definitely don't want this image deleted? thanks Krystel Espiritu (talk)

Who is the photographer? Where and when was it taken? When and where was it published for the first time? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yann: I don't know who the photographer was but it was taken in 1951 at Sharq, Kuwait and I have no idea when it was ever published because I've seen it in a few local magazines along with their Bio and on a company profile book.

PD-text or not?

Expert help from a person with a knowledge of Russian requested here. YLSS (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lisbon (8630633749).jpg

This pic has been uploaded from Flickr by a bot (likely requested by tm). The EXIF data say "Lisbon, PT Pic by: Diogo Teles" while the author in the description template appears to be Luca Sartoni. Is it all right or there is a conflict between the real author and the Flickr user who hosted the image?--Carnby (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Might be good to ask, if possible. The Flickr user appears to be a photographer... and the camera used in this seems to be the same as in other shots in the same album which don't have the special attribution. Maybe they were walking around together, and Diogo Teles took the shots with Sartoni's camera? Pure guess. It may be OK anyways since it appears to have been published with the other author's blessing, and presumably the license (i.e. it does not appear to be taken from elsewhere). It would be good to fix the attribution at least, and double-checking on the license might be a good idea. The Flickr user's name seems to have several online outlets where contact could be made. I'm not sure I'd delete it though unless the answer comes back that the license was a mistake. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass uploads from Flickr will place the account owner’s name in the |author field of the template {{Information}}. It is up to the uploader to clean up and fix automated assumptions. User:Tm did his usual shtick: Uploaded and then went away chasing the next shiny object… I’ll fix it. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair use

There is no way you cannot accept fair use on Commons. I'm making this statement after seeing many valuable pictures of OV-Chipcards deleted due to the OV-Chipcard logo that was visible, and now some pictures of Albert Heijn products nominated. There is no way there is any picture that hasn't some sort of copyrighted material on it. You might as well delete entire Commons then. At least let someone explain why these pictures are not nominated for deletion as well:

The fonts and logos on the signs near the exits
The design of the flower pots
The BP logo and probably the other logos as well
Broad street plaza logo
Oyster Card logo and card design
Toyota design and logo
Ford design and logo
ANWB design
Many logos and slogans
McDonalds logo and many other logos
JJB Sports logo
Nissan and ~~Fiat~~Smart Automobile designs

(Note: I have no intention to nominate the above pictures for deletion.) PPP (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@PPP: In general (just glancing at a few) COM:de minimis seems to apply. If the copyrighted work that is included is incidental to the subject matter of the image itself, then it's not a copyright violation. Revent (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If an image has an unlicensed copyright which requires a fair use rationale in order to use it in a particular context, then Commons cannot host it. That is mandated by the WMF; Commons is not allowed an "Exemption Doctrine Policy" that local projects can use to host works with a fair use (or similar) rationale. However... there are times that a photograph is not a derivative work even though copyrighted items may appear in the picture. One case is de minimis, mentioned above, where the items are not significant to the picture. Another case is "incidental" inclusion, which is where a copyrighted item is part of a larger whole, and the photograph is of the larger whole, with the copyrighted item being unavoidably part of the photo (and not under the control of the photographer to put it there). In one example, U.S. courts ruled in the Ets-Hokins decision that a copyrightable label on a bottle does not make a photograph of the entire bottle a derivative work; only photos focusing on the label would be derivative. There was a similar case in Florida about a photo of a motorcycle which had customized paint work on it. In France, they had a court case which called it the "theory of the accessory" or something like that; a copyrighted building or structure did not cause a photograph of the entire area the building was located in to become a derivative work. This is mentioned on the de minimis page although it's not strictly a de minimis situation. Of the photos you post above, just about all are de minimis. The Oyster card looks mostly PD-ineligible, and the logo would be de-minimis. The photo of the various card designs is a bit more gray though quite possibly still OK. It gets more problematic for photos of product packaging... photos can be derivative if they are *focusing* on say a bottle's label; in a way such photographs are inherently focusing on the packaging artwork because there really isn't any other focus for the photo. The photo is there to show what a product's packaging looks like. There would be very wide fair use grounds for that, but it has been a sticky issue at Commons. I did not see the OV-Chipcard DRs but it sounds like those may have been mistaken deletions -- the presence of a logo on a product should not cause a photo of the entire product to be derivative. (A crop of that photo to just the logo would be an issue.) In the DR that you link to... most appear to be photos of product packaging. Many do look old, and if they were produced more than 70 years ago in the EU then there is an argument that the copyright has expired ({{Anonymous-EU}}), unless the artist is named, in which case we'd have to find out how long they lived. It's possible an argument can be made that a photo of product packaging is being made simply to depict the product itself, and not due to any artistic merit of the packaging. I'm not aware of any court cases which have had to decide a case like that, so I'm not sure we have good guidance on such things, which makes it a hard type of thing to allow, as it's an easy line to cross. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Clindberg: You deserve an (off topic) good natured poke for the length of that paragraph. Revent (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Clindberg: The OV-Chipcard pictures were of the very same nature as the Oyster Card pictures. If that picture can stay, I feel the OV-Chipcard pictures (or at least the one showing a personal and an anonymous card) should be restored as well. PPP (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In the case of "Toyota design and logo", note that utilitarian objects are ineligible for copyright in Japan, so the Toyota design is fine. On the other hand, utilitarian objects are eligible for copyright in France, and there has been at least one French court ruling where photos of utilitarian objects were found to be infringing copyright, so there is possibly a problem with pictures of Renault or Citroën cars. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

CC-BY-2.0 with copyright mark?

Hello, I've uploaded a picture on here a while ago from Flickr, which is marked as cc-by-2.0 on Flickr. However, the picture shows a copyright mark clearly visible in the bottom right corner, which conflicts with the cc-by-2.0 license. This also is the case for another picture by this photographer. That makes me wonder if these pictures are actually allowed on Commons or not and which license actually applies. The newer pictures of the author are marked as copyrighted on Flickr, which makes me believe he had these two and other pictures marked as cc-by-2.0 by accident. Could anyone help me on this? Thanks in advance. --MisterHorsus (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

How does the copyright mark conflict with cc-by-2.0? A work put under a CC license is still copyrighted. --Sebari (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a case of changing licences on Flickr. It happens from time to time that people choose to reset their images to "all rights reserved" but they either keep forgetting or they simply don't know that once you have released a work under a Creative Commons licence you cannot revoke that licence. So if any Flickr image was previously released under a valid CC licence you don't need to worry about any later (c) tags. De728631 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That's good to know, thanks for the answers! --MisterHorsus (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The license is still CC-BY on Flickr; it has not been changed (though that can happen). However, the copyright is still fully valid with a CC license (other than CC0) so the copyright notice is still completely valid; it's just that that copyright is being licensed. There is no conflict between having a copyright notice and a CC license. The statement "All rights reserved" is different; that is somewhat in conflict, though even then arguably the license is just applying to users who comply with the terms, and for all other users all rights are reserved from them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that CC-BY 2.0 says that "You must keep intact all copyright notices" so you must remember to include this copyright notice if you use the file. However, as long as you do this, you should be fine. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

enquiry about copyrights of Historic photographys

Hi,

I had publish two image that was deleted because I didn't «include a license tag» (1 and 2). I copied these two image with two screenshots of the the pdf of a book that can be downloaded for free from the website of the University of Costance (pp. 157 and 205 of the pdf) but I didn't know the copyright status.

So I did a research:

First, I asked «to various individuals and institutions»;
After, because the picture was published from the der Spiegel (at p. 2, the first one from the top and at p. 3) and also from a book sold by the Corriere della Sera (Rcs media group). I asked them both, from Rcs media group was replied to me that the image was purchased from Corbis; instead from the der Spiegel was replied to me that «the first picture is from AKG in Berlin: 0049 30/804 85200!» and that «the other photos are not known to us, unfortunately».

Corbis and Akg sell the first of those images, AKG both (v. : 1 and 2).

So I asked to Akg from which they replied to me that:

The photographers of both images are unknown. However you will have to clear the usage rights with the photo agency from which you downloaded the high res file. Historic photographys can often be found at different stocks. Agencys like us (or like corbis) collect those images, scan them, search for the information and provide them via their databases so that our clients can research them via the internet. Therefore we have to charge a fee for our services.

As I already presented before I copied these photos with two screenshots of a pdf freely downloadable (it is published from the university with this license) and not from a photo agency so I ask: Can I re-upload them? What should I specify in the license when I'll re-upload them? If all this information isn't enough where I can search more information about the copyright status?--Karlzeno (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings:Karlzeno

(A) I looked at the deposit archive link page you provided, and that is for people giving them images. ("The copyright protection is not affected by this license. ")

(B) File:P._157_-_Bild_aus;_Illustrerierte_Zeitung,_Leipzig._Nr._4628,_23._Novembre_1933,_S._592._Siehe_hierzu_die_Texte_Nr._119,_126_und_132.png was copied from a book: Nachlese zur Heidegger. Dokumente zu seinem Leben und Denken, Guido Schneeberger, Bern, Selbstverlag, 1962, p. 145 http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-224429 p. 157." The book was published in 1962.

(C) Your other deleted upload - File:Martin Heidegger 1934.png - was from a 1934 book.

(D) The Der Speigel page you reference, http://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/46265617, is from 1966.

I don't think the university license covers either one of these files and just because something is available for download that doesn't release its copyrights to the downloader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi: Ellin Beltz

Thanks for you answer.

All the two photos were made in 1933 and published in 1934 (see 1, 1b and 2 or see the captions of the two photos in the Schneeberger's book at pp. 157 and 205 of the pdf) and are sold by Akg without knowing the authors («like Corbis» they only «collect those images, scan them, search for the information and provide them via their databases so that our clients can research them via the internet.» and also the Harald Fischer Verlag «produced a reproduction of the Illustrierte Zeitung (complete work) but do not hold any copyright to the original edition or the material included»). Does it means that if I do the photos of the two original 1934 publications, or if I have the permission by the copyright holder of the Schneeberger's book, I can re-upload them?--Karlzeno (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If they qualify as {{Anonymous-EU}} (PD in Germany due to being anonymously published more than 70 years ago, without the authors being identified in that period), then unfortunately for us the U.S. copyright is still valid (restored in 1996 due to the URAA since they were copyrighted in Germany then), and in the U.S. lasts 95 years from publication. If you find the owner of the photograph copyright though, and they license the photographs with a free license, then yes they would be OK. If Schneeberger's book took them from somewhere else, those owners may not be the same as those of the photographs, but they are hopefully the ones who would know. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted lingerie images

These "sexy" images have been uploaded to Commons with an Art Libre Copyleft License, but are tagged as copyrighted and show a heavy watermark with © symbol. What should we do? Thanks in advance.

--Carnby (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Somona. Yann (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Giacomo/Jacques Inaudi

Is it OK to upload the famous poster of Giacomo/Jacques Inaudi dated 1876 (he was born in 1867, so in 1876 he was nine years old)? I'm pretty sure this poster and this other poster (also interesting) have more problems, since they were made in the first part of the XX century.--Carnby (talk)

Your reasoning seems apt, it would be nice to have a bit more 'history' on them, but the dating on the older one does seem to put it firmly in 'extremely expired copyright' territory... the artist would seem to have needed to live well into his 90's to create a possible problem. Revent (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If Charles Lévy died more than 70 years ago, then yes. That is likely, though not quite definite. Lévy was primarily a printer who employed others, but it appears he was also an artist, and the poster appears to be signed by him (if someone else did this, then it would be Anonymous-EU and be fine).This page indicates his printer business was active from the late 1870s to the mid 1890s, and this page documents known examples of his work which date from 1878 through 1898. There is also Émile Lévy, an apparent relative (that source guesses that Charles was the father, but maybe they were brothers), who put out similar posters of his own from 1864 or so until 1890. Those links probably have most of the known information on them, so his life dates are probably unknown. Dunno... I think that is probably old enough to assume PD-Old, though others may disagree. If the guess on being a parent of Émile is correct, and his son was producing works in the 1860s, then the parent definitely died long before 1945 (and almost certainly the son as well). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nkansahrexford

It looks like a lot of uploads by Nkansahrexford (talk · contribs) are copyrighted images. 67.131.235.220 18:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

After the 5th camera model I think you have a point, or two…

It's IMO too much for one bulk deletion request, split it somehow if/when you try that, e.g., test one set with almost the same upload date, similar titles, and the same source (camera) in a bulk deletion request, for one good reason, e.g., "tineye found older versions". If you've never requested a deletion before test the procedure with single pictures first, to get a feeling what works and what doesn't work. There's a big random factor, but you are entitled to request deletions without logging in. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Silhouette of Stripper on a Pole.svg

Should the license of derived image File:Silhouette of Stripper on a Pole.svg be adjusted from PD to GFDL/CC-BY-SA to correspond with its original source image File:Sexy dancer 02.jpg? -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes, since the silhouette is copyrightable, and it don't know if it's enough of a derivative to even be registered separately from its original work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Mongolian coins

Can anybody write a section about Mongolia in commons:Currency? The hedgehogs and manuls of WWF series are so awesome ^‿^ Ignatus (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Mexico 1942 photograph

I am unsure whether this photo (depicting Alice Rahon, seventh from the top on the page) would be ok to upload on the basis of existing data. On one hand, it is anonymous and taken in Mexico (in 1942, Rahon did not leave Mexico), which makes it 50 years copyright protection. On the other hand, it is copyrighted to Getty Images, and they do not indicate where and when it was first published. Thanks for helping.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Legally speaking, where it was taken is irrelevant; what matters is where it was first published. Not to trust Getty, but if it were taken by a journalist for a foreign news service, it could well have been first published in the US or Canada or the UK or Brazil.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's actually marked as copyright of Getty Research Institute, which is an unrelated entity to Getty Images. Sounds like it's a gelatin print (i.e. they may not have the original photograph), and given PD-Art any copyright claim is pretty bogus without knowing who the author is (which it sounds like they don't) to see if it was covered by the terms of the archive donation. Looks like it is part of this collection, which are the papers of one of Moro's colleagues. That brings the distinct possibility it was unpublished, which could greatly complicate matters. The colleague was Peruvian, as well. If unpublished, the U.S. copyright would likely be valid for some time yet, though Getty Research Institute is unlikely to own it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your reactions. I conclude that the photo is not safe to be uploaded to Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Public domain for modern image

This image is a modern combination of two previously-separate public domain images. The image has recently been kept at a deletion request on the grounds that it is PD (a decision I disagreed with, but that's neither here nor there now). It was generally accepted at the deletion request that the display given was not the original display of the image, but rather - as I say - a modern combination of two separate images.

The image is marked as:

This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.

Unless we're really suggesting that people were digitally manipulating images prior to 1945, this isn't true. The creator of the image was the person who combined the images to their current position, and we must assume that was much later than 1945. So, what is the correct tag, and could somebody correct it please? Thanks, Kahastok talk 17:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The changes made do not support a copyright themselves. Thus, the only copyrightable expression present is the original works, and those are PD. It's not simply that changes were made; the changes themselves have to have enough creative expression to create a new copyright. There is no originality in the selection of the items (they were both part of the same basic original work) and an arrangement on top of each other is also not copyrightable. It's pretty hard to get a "selection and arrangement" copyright on just two items anyways. The license is correct. Now... combining them to give a false impression that this was a lead story may be a slight moral rights issue, which is partly mitigated by an accurate description, though might be better to have a visual divider to indicate there is elided material between the two. But that is that not related to the copyright license, and therefore is not related to keeping it or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Digital manipulation of images (cut and paste) before modern computers meant operating a scissors with your fingers (digits) then gluing the pieces to a sheet of paper. A little Wite-Out hid the edges. In the past I have personally use this method to create brochures, manuals and viewfoils.

Can I claim a copyright on this image for combining portions to two public domain documents? Swtpc6800 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. For more information, see section 312.2 in the Copyright Office's Compendium (Chapter 3). It is hard to get a compilation copyright when selecting and arranging less than four items. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

At present there isn't an accurate description - that's part of the problem. It's claimed that the image was "reworked", which implies that it was just retouched or made clearer. In fact it was two images being placed together in a way that was actively and deliberately misleading.

But my question here was not about that - nor about keeping it or not - I'm afraid the DR saw to that. Even if, as you say, this mashup of two separate images does not attract copyright, the image was not created more than 70 years ago so the rationale for putting it in the PD is surely false. The PD claim in this case would surely be because its component parts are PD due to age and the mashup is insufficient to attract copyright, not that the image itself is PD due to age? Because it isn't - the mashup was not created by somebody who's been dead for more than 70 years. Kahastok talk 21:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Our copyright licenses do not cover sub-copyrightable "creation". Technically, the picture you see was created by you on your computer screen. Someone scanned the parts into the computer at some point in the recent history, possibly from a copy someone else made by photographing paper into microfilm. Unless there's a possibility of a copyright claim--in which case we use PD-Art--we don't worry about such things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

FoP in Russia:Sculpture vs Architecture

FoP in Russia covers architecture but not sculpture. Would this file be safe for uploading on Commons? It is a modern chapel which is officially called "Chapel-monument". Sorry for opening the second thread here today, it exceeds my typical yearly activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's OK. If it's designed for humans to go inside, that puts in more in the realm of architecture. "Monument" doesn't imply either way what type of work it is -- some are architectural, some are sculptural, some have both. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the photographer has uploaded the file on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Stupid request from someone using way too much Jumpstart

Woult this image be considered available here. It is according to flickr under a creative commons license. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's license is CC-BY-NC-SA on Flickr. The "NC" part means non-commercial only, and thus it is not a "free" license, and can't be uploaded. See Commons:Licensing. Only CC-BY and CC-BY-SA creative commons licenses can be uploaded (and CC0 as well). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Permission given information

3rdWorldkid (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) If someone wants to give me a picture to upload here that is his own work, exactly what information does he have to provide, is there a form that he can fill in, must he send it snail mail or how does he identifiy himself. Simple enough information but without perusing page after page of information that in no way applies to my situation, I can't find the answers. I should be really glad if someone could point me in the right direction to the simple, straightforward solution. Thank you.

@3rdWorldkid: The simplest solution is to have him upload it himself using the Upload Wizard. That way, he can read the introduction and understand what it means to contribute pictures here. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Failing that, if the author is unwilling or unable to create an account here, he should e-mail OTRS to release the image under a free licence; they will keep a confidential record of his personal info and issue a “ticket” for inclusion on the file page(s) concerned. A sample form is available on that page. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

FoP in Mexico

As a result of the discussion above I've revisited the Mexican FoP legislation that is consistently used to sustain any derivative work in Mexico. According to such an interpretation this, this or this would be for commons.

I've found the following rationale (article 148 of the Mexican Intellectual Property Act):

Las obras literarias y artisticas ya divulgadas podran utilizarse, siempre que no se afecte la explotacion normal de la obra, sin autorizacion del titular del derecho patrimonial y sin remuneracion, citando invariablemente la fuente y sin alterar la obra, solo en los siguientes casos:

[..]
Reproduccion, comunicacion y distribucion por medio de dibujos, pinturas, fotografias y procedimientos audiovisuales de las obras que sean visibles desde lugares publicos.

Translation is duly provided:

Literary and artistic works that have already been disclosed may only be used in the following cases without the consent of the owner of the economic rights and without remuneration, provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not adversely affected thereby and provided also that the source is invariably mentioned and that no alteration is made to the work

[..]
Reproduction, communication, and distribution in drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual processes of works that are visible from public places.

The clauses above contain IMHO some ambiguous statements (provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not adversely affected thereby, how can we assess whether the normal exploitation of the work is affected or not?), some not so ambiguous statements (no alteration is made to the work) and some significant missing statements (nothing is said about whether derivative work is provided or if commercialization is allowed).

It happens that, in the past, such proof points have been used to discard some apparently valid sources, on the grounds that both modification and commercialization rights must be asserted (to name the last one I've been involved in, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ángel Gabilondo en rueda de prensa.jpg, with the result Deleted: no clear statement about commercial use and derivate works). Moreover, if you go to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/08#Is_this_condition_compliant_with_commons_licenses.3F, I proposed to analyze the following license from a Spanish governmental agency:

Se autoriza la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos del Portal, siempre que se cite expresamente su origen público.

The full or partial reproduction of the contents of this Portal is allowed provided that its public origin (or source) is specifically stated.

Compare The full or partial reproduction of the contents of this Portal is allowed provided that its public origin (or source) is specifically stated with Literary and artistic works[..] may only be used [..] provided also that the source is invariably mentioned and that no alteration is made to the work

The Spanish license was deemed as not compatible stating, for instance, that Specifically, the terms permit copying, but do not permit modification.

To sum up, I'm wondering what's the difference between the Mexican case (no alteration is allowed, no clear statement about commercial use) and the Spanish one, which is provided just as example, I can look for other ones (alteration is not possible, no clear statement about commercial use). Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 10:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The "normal exploitation" clause is taken from the Berne Convention; that is present in basically all laws. We have taken it to mean that the resulting work really can't be a substitute for the original -- e.g. a photo of a public photo (and cropped just to be the original photo) is not OK. Almost all FoP or fair use laws have something like that clause, since it's mandated (though not defined) by Berne. Also the "no alteration is allowed" is taken to be referring to moral rights -- you can't distort the image to create the impression that the distortion is actually in the public context. We do not think that is referring to the derivative work right; the law basically says that such photos are not subject to the normal derivative rights portion of the economic right, but they are still subject to the moral rights of the pictured work. Again, that is very common in FoP laws (Germany has the same, as do many others). *Laws* would have to explicitly mention commercial use as a limitation -- if not mentioned while defining limitations of the derivative right, then all uses (commercial and non-commercial) are OK. When it comes to *license* statements of something where there is a clear economic right involved, then yes, that is when we are more careful about commercial use. Please look at the archives of Commons talk:Freedom of panorama; it has been discussed *many* times. Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 9#Unfree restrictions on FoP-Mexico has pointers to some of the original discussions, but there are more. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Carl, thank you for pointing to the links you provide. However, I can't see there any justification beyond your statements saying that "this clause is like another clause". I mean, such interpretations should have a legal source, shouldn't they? I find your interpretation compelling however unsatisfactory. I won't enter into the commercial vs. noncommercial issue. We can leave it for further discussion. However, you fail to explain me why we're so relaxed with FoP-related issues while the cases I've mentioned are so toughly examined (they require explicit derivative and commercial clauses, this one, although apparently saying otherwise, are considered as appropriate). But, again, we can leave these cases for further discussion.

I'd like to focus on your statement about the "alteration" clause and its alleged relationship to moral rights. If I understand you correctly, we can dismiss the clause that reads Las obras literarias y artísticas ya divulgadas podrán utilizarse [..] citando invariablemente la fuente y sin alterar la obra... since, according to you such a clause is taken to be referring to moral rights -- you can't distort the image to create the impression that the distortion is actually in the public context. Is there any source that supports such a statement? I say that because, first of all, moral rights are slightly different to the definition you've provided (distortion is forbidden as long as it translates into anything prejudicial to the work or the author's reputation; too vague to be useful). But the main contention issue is that the Mexican law does describe, explicit and clearly, what moral rights are and the rights they give to authors (sorry if the translation is not good enough, I'm mostly using the Berne Convention as basis). Article 21 says that:

Los titulares de los derechos morales podrán en todo tiempo: III. Exigir respeto a la obra, oponiéndose a cualquier deformación, mutilación u otra modificación de ella, así como a toda acción o atentado a la misma que cause demérito de ella o perjuicio a la reputación de su autor;

The owners of the moral rights will be entitled, at any time: III. To demand respect for his/her work, restraining any distortion, mutilation or modification of the work, or any other derogatory action in relation to the work that would be prejudicial to the work or the author's reputation

As you can see, moral rights are clear and distinctively defined in the Mexican Intellectual Property Rights, and therefore needn't be asserted twice (or vaguely mentioned in other articles). You state that the clause relating to alteration is related (is equivalent in fact) to the moral rights clause. However, this seems totally dubious:

First of all, why should any legislation assert the same proviso twice? I agree with your interpretation regarding the consequences for us of moral rights. But moral rights are regulated in clear, distinctive and independent way in the Mexican law. Any work, used or not under the terms of the article 148, carries moral rights. So, any work, under the terms or not of article 148, should not be distorted, mutilated or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the work or the author's reputation. No need to assert that since article 21 applied.
However, article 148 introduces a specific restriction with a wording different to what the Mexican Intellectual Property Rights (or the Berne Convention) states with regard to moral rights. It says clearly that alteration is not allowed. Unlike moral rights, in which distortion, mutilation or modification of the work is clearly aimed to prevent any derogatory action in relation to the work that would be prejudicial to the work or the author's reputation, the restriction in article 148 is absolute, and not related or subordinated to any moral right (moral rights restrictions are relative, related to being prejudicial to the work or the author's reputation).

In my humble opinion, claiming that this absolute restriction explicitly introduced in article 148 is equivalent to moral rights-related restrictions (already defined otherwise and applying by default to the works covered by article 148) is wishful-thinking. I'd like to reach a different conclusion, but I can't. I've always tried to find the most favorable view for keeping works in commons (the examples above are examples in which I provided arguments for the compatibility of licensing conditions), but here I think we're distorting words to make them say exactly the opposite to what they actually say. In Spanish and in English the sentence the works may only be used without the consent of the owner of the economic rights and without remuneration, provided that no alteration is made to the work has a single and unambiguous legal meaning. It does not say "no alteration is made to the work that would be prejudicial to the work or the author's reputation". No. That's said in other place. Here it says simply "No alteration is made to the work" and it means... that "no alteration" is allowed. Therefore, it does not comply with our policies. Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 16:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, I invite you to read this reference. It's in Spanish, but for sure there will be a similar edition in English, as it's an OMPI (WIPO) document. Item3 talks about alteración and clearly links this term with the creation of derivate works:

3. Transformación de una obra literaria o artística

Se entiende generalmente que significa cualquier modificación de una obra existente. Las alteraciones creativas dan lugar a una obra derivada; otros tipos de alteraciones pueden perseguir simplemente la finalidad de adaptar la obra a las condiciones especiales que exige una utilización particular, como por ejemplo, a las posibilidades de un teatro determinado en el caso de las obras dramáticas. Cualquier alteración de una obra está supeditada a la autorización del titular del derecho de autor.

However, item 41 describes what deformación is (remember that moral rights restrain "deformación")

41. Deformación de una obra

Es una distorsión del verdadero significado o forma de expresión de una obra; constituye una lesión de los derechos morales.

Item 71 describes modificación

71. Modificación de una obra

Es toda transformación de una obra: si es perjudicial para el honor o la reputación del autor, constituye infracción de sus derechos morales.

Finally, item 73 deals with mutilación

73. Mutilación de una obra

Cualesquiera cambios introducidos en una obra supresión o destrucción de una parte de ella; todo de esta clase constituye infracción de los derechos morales.

Deformación, modificación, and mutilación are related to moral rights and WIPO defines them and relates to moral rights. Fine. However, alteración is unambiguous related to derivate works. Article 148 in the Mexican IPR law explicit forbids alteración (i.e. the creation of derivate works) and does it without any restriction. I can't find any other interpretation that supports the current consideration of FoP in Mexico --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 16:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The term derivative work refers to an concept in United States copyright law. This concept often doesn't exist outside the United States. Instead, the laws of other countries tend to contain a different concept known as moral rights, which usually gives the same result. You seem to be making a mistake by referring to the United States concept derivative work when discussing Mexican law.

The concept moral rights typically seems to prohibit all modifications (for example, TV commercials in the middle of a film[1]), whereas the concept derivative work seems to prohibit using the work as a part of a new work (for example, illustrating a text with pre-existing images, see the concept collective work in CC-BY-ND). Both concept provide big restrictions on modification.

Copyright laws sometimes provide exemptions from the restriction concepts. For example, United States law contains a provision known as fair use which states that you sometimes can use illustrate a text with copyrighted images without having to care about the concept derivative work, and Swedish law contains a provision which allows the owner of a copy of an architectural work to make substantial modifications to the work without having to care about the concept moral rights.

As the Mexican law specifically refers to modifications, it seems that the Mexican law uses the concept moral rights, instead of the concept derivative work, to prohibit modifications. This would seem to mean that you can use pictures of a Mexican building to illustrate an article about the building (the concept derivative work is not used), but that you can't, for example, use the picture to parodise the building (for example by drawing a face on the building), unless there is a specific exemption for parodies in Mexican copyright law which you may rely on. Both kinds of restrictions seem to be equally unacceptable. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording is the same in the German FoP law (section 62). For better or worse, the community decided that was still within bounds of Commons policy many years ago. It would, at the most, prevent derivatives of the underlying work, but would not prevent derivatives of the photograph itself, which is probably more what we are concerned with. And furthermore, that clause is most probably in regards to other types of legal copying where the work is more directly copied (it's a catchall that applies to all of the fair use-ish type situations spelled out in the law, which are usually about making copies in the same form as the original) and is probably a bit nonsensical with photographs. The German FoP discussion from 2007 is where most of that was argued out; the Mexican law is more or less identical. If you can find a court case where someone made actually made a legal FoP photograph but then illegally modified it, so we could see what types of situations are actually a problem, that could change things. Failing that though, I do not see that the author of the underlying work can prevent derivatives of the photograph itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You are again making the mistake of using the term derivative which is something closely associated with United States law.

The only example of a modification which I am aware of is de:Holbeinpferd#Rechtsstreit um Postkarten, where someone violated copyright law by adding clothes to a picture of a statue. This would seem to imply that it isn't permitted to parodise German statues. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The Berne Convention text does mention derivative works as the title of Article 2(3), but yes, there are a lot of specific technicalities and definitions surrounding them in U.S. law which only apply there. It does sound like potentially altering the depiction of the underlying work could be an issue, but I figured that was true with moral rights anyways (that is distorting the work). Whether that is a moral rights or economic rights issue, the general policy is that that restriction is OK enough and does not make the photo non-free, nor does it prevent derivative works of the photo itself (provided the underlying work is still depicted accurately). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Images in Vertebrate Anatomy Morphology Phylogeny

An online journal published through the University of Alberta, Vertebrate Anatomy Morphology Phylogeny (VAMP), is published under a CC-BY 4.0 license. However, as the copyright page states, the articles are all under CC-BY 4.0, yet the specific articles (example) only mentions CC-BY-NC-ND license. Because of this conflict of licenses, will the images in the publications be uploadable or not? Also as a note, there is absolutely no mention of "unless otherwise noted" anywhere on the copyright page or article pages. IJReid (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

NC or ND aren't allowed here, and if you find a license about "articles" this could be completely beside the point for images or other media files. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be that the journal has changed its default license between posting the "for authors" notice and the actual publication of the first issue. I'd err on the side of caution (and what's printed on the actual published article) and assume NC until or unless the copyright status is more clearly resolved. It's also possible (but unlikely) that the editors don't fully understand the difference between CC-BY-3.0 and CC-BY-NC-3.0. I've encountered at least one scientific website where the license caption and thumbnail allude to CC-BY, but clicking the link goes to the legal text of the other (CC-BY-NC), creating the potential for quite a lot of confusion and possible legal issues. When I politely e-mailed the webmaster to confirm which was the "right" license, I was told the licensing is "quite clear as stated". Ha! Animalparty (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

FoP as universal washer of copyright?

Hi all, I'm coming here as a result of the ongoing discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Spongebob Squarepants. I noticed that there were a wide set of derivative works of this (I assume) copyrighted character and therefore requested the deletion of all derivative works. To my surprise, it was described as a 'disruptive' edition and several different FoP regulations were mentioned.

The image on the left is a crop of larger image that (I wasn't fully aware of) had been subject to DR three times and deemed as valid according to FoP in Mexico. I'm using this picture as example as I do think it describes very well the issue here (FoP regulations can be restrictive or relaxed but gives some freedom to use copyrighted stuff). Well, in the example I'm taking here and assuming that our interpretation of the Mexican FoP legislation is right, the picture on the left would be in the public domain. Fine. But the character is still copyrighted in the United States. And the picture is still a derivative work. Therefore (in my interpretation) it wouldn't be at all in the public domain in the United States regardless of the status of the picture in other jurisdictions (there could be other issues such as whether the people exhibiting the copyrighted character had the right to do it or not, but it doesn't change the argumentation). According to our policies (Commons:Licensing), Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.

Even if we find a jurisdiction relaxed enough to rip off the copyright of anything exhibited publicly it does not mean that the copyright vanished in the US (especially considering a character, such a Spongebob, created and exploited in the US). Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 20:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, There already were several discussions about this very same issue. Please look into the archive. And I also think that such a common DR is not useful. Each case is different, as situated in different countries with different copyright laws and different FoP exceptions. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The question has come up multiple times, but there are no easy answers. It would definitely not be allowed to make use of the photo by removing all its public context. There would be a stronger case for keeping the wider photo, as the subject may be more the entire balloon display and not the character directly, though it is featured (works which are focused on an entire event are not necessarily derivative of a copyright work which happens to be there). In that situation, crops to the copyrighted work are definite problems. With this one, there is still the FoP issue, which can make the crop OK as well, though again uses which strip out its public context would no longer be allowed (this one is close, but not quite there, I don't think). Any such works are more practibly no longer a derivative work of the photo, but more a dirct derivative of the character. From a practical perspective... I could definitely see courts ruling as you say, but I could also see them taking the law in Mexico into account (presumably, the Spongebob folks allowed that balloon to be shown in a country with laws like that). There are precedents which use foreign laws to determine copyright ownership, but U.S. laws to determine infringement, and they *could* feasibly rule that the foreign law dictates that there is no copyright ownership in the photograph due to the FoP laws. They could just as feasibly rule that the copyright ownership of the photo is clear, as is the ownership of the character, and any usages must still take into account the character copyright. As far as I know, there have been no court cases which address this issue, at least ones involving FoP. The practical upshot of your conclusions would be that we would need to delete FoP photos of permanent sculpture anywhere in the world, without a solid court case to show that they are actual copyright problems. We at least have those when deleting photographs of non-FoP sculpture and buildings. I think people have wanted to keep the status quo on the the FoP issue; Commons is seen to be aggressive as it is. Mexico is a bit unusual since it doesn't have the "permanent" requirement in its FoP law, but there is no reason not to follow it if we are using FoP laws elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

We do have a {{Not-free-US-FOP}} tag which should probably be used on such photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Carl, IMHO you're using a de minimis argument that, in fact, you translate into de maximis. The image I've uploaded is definitely a copyright violation in the US (for sure). But so the source picture is. The Spongebob balloon is not an incidental element in the picture, but the main and key element in the composition. If removed, the image lacks its meaning. On the other hand, I appreciate the link to the {{Not-free-US-FOP}} template (I wasn't aware of that and the associated discussion) but both you and me can agree on such template breaching commons policies (stating that a picture must be free in both the US and its source country), can't we? In fact, if it's so easy to discard the status in the US, why so much endless discussion about URAA? Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 10:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC) PS: in fact, the problem IMHO lies in our weird Mexican FoP interpretation (see below)

Additionally, and considering the discussion in {{Not-free-US-FOP}}, I can't see why the image I've uploaded wouldn't be valid. If the US copyright is discarded on the grounds of the Mexico (or whatever country) FoP, it's not relevant whether the context is preserved or not (nevertheless, I consider, see below, that our interpretation of the Mexican FoP provisos is definitely wrong. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 10:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And sorry, I forget. I see a fundamental issue when it comes to copyright 'removed' by means of FoP. If the source country (meaning the country where the artwork was created) has a legislation that allow FoP, for me it's OK, regardless of whether the US FoP legislation has the same effect on the copyright or not. But I don't buy the other way around (when US is the source country and the copyright "ripoff" comes not from FoP in the US but from FoP in other countries). There's a key difference and while I'd support {{Not-free-US-FOP}} in the first case (source country != US), I wouldn't do the same in the second one (source country == US). BR --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 11:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not "for sure" a copyright violation in the U.S. You have a legitimate argument, but it's not clear what effect the Mexican law would have for potential usages of the photo in the U.S. This photo was taken in Mexico; thus Mexico is the "source country" by your definition. That's the only reason we apply it, correct. If by "source country" you mean where the underlying artwork was created, well no -- many sculptures are created by an artist in one country then permanently displayed in another -- we use the FoP laws in the latter country. The laws in the sculptor's country would not come into play at all for this -- it's all about the expected rights of the photographer. The only thing introducing some doubt to the situation are the FoP laws in the location the picture was taken; that gives some rights to the photographer in that location, and the question is would courts take that into account for usages in the U.S. w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. gives some guidance on which laws to apply but there was no FoP element to that case, which introduces the element of doubt that Not-free-US-FOP rests on; if we remove that doubt then all photos of copyrighted sculpture need to be removed. You could very well be right; the one case we know of in Germany (the one over the w:Hundertwasserhaus) applied particularities of German law to a FoP situation which was fine in Austria, the source country of the original photo (by whatever definition). However, that is not a guarantee that the U.S. would use the same approach, thus the tag. (The URAA has nothing to do with this, other than being patterned after the Not-free-US-URAA tag, as at the time we had been hosting URAA-restored images while the Supreme Court appeal over the law was going on.) If you can point to a court case that we can use which backs up your opinion, that would change things. But until then, it's just an opinion. As for the secondary argument above, unrelated to FoP -- no, I was not talking about de minimis. I was talking about "incidental" inclusion, which is a separate concept. If you take a photo of a bottle with a copyrightable label, then the photo is not derivative of the label, even though the label is quite prominent in the photo and nowhere near de minimis. That is what the Ets-Hokins decision said. In that case, the photographer was taking a photograph of the entire bottle, and the label just happened to be there -- that is "incidental" to the overall subject of the photograph. In that situation, the bottle is the "underlying work" of the photo, and the label is not, thus the photo is not a derivative work of the label. A photo of the entire balloon scene which included the Spongebob balloon in similar proportions to the other balloons should be OK -- even if it was fairly prominent. I would tend to agree that the photographer made a decision to feature the Spongebob balloon specifically though, and that could take it out of the realm of "incidental". Your crop definitely takes it out of that realm -- if a photograph is no longer of a bottle, but instead focuses on the label itself, then the label becomes the "underlying work" and then the photo becomes a derivative work. So while a picture of a bottle is OK, some crops of that photo are not. But when you add the FoP element, then yes, your crop is fine using Not-free-US-FOP by our current policies. There are many photos taken by news organizations of say a Thanksgiving Day parade; the copyright in such photos is claimed by the news organizations (or whoever the photographers were) and they are widely re-published in books etc. about the parade -- I have serious doubts that say photos of a Spiderman balloon during the parade would be a problem when published in such books. The photos are just depicting a licensed use of the character -- it's not necessarily a derivative work of the character, when the photo is of the parade scene itself, even if the Spiderman balloon is featured. That would apply to *most* usages of the photo as well -- it's a little different even than photos directly of sculpture, which are definitely a problem. Now, if you remove the parade context from such a photo, then the result is more a direct usage of Spiderman, and is a derivative work of the character without question. The original photo really could be the equivalent of that even without FoP -- it's hard to say. Your crop though focuses particularly on Spongebob so that argument would go out the window. FoP would add an additional element though, which might be taken into account as an additional mitigation, and that is the only reason we have kept photos directly of sculpture. So, frankly, I consider photos of copyrighted sculpture much more likely to be a problem than the original photo we are discussing here. We generally have also not deleted photos of people wearing costumes which may have copyrighted elements, nor of people wearing clothes with copyrighted patterns (though photos of masks might be more problematic due to case law). This is in that realm -- there are gray areas, but there is always *some* doubt, and we cannot point to a court case where a photo of a balloon (or similar) in a situation like this was ruled a derivative work of a character. If we are going to be deleting people's pictures, I very much prefer to be able to point to a court case which shows the problem, and not have it based on solely on our opinions. It can make us look like we enjoy finding theoretical copyright problems and deleting on that basis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

From what one understands, FOP usually applies only to permanently installed works, though there may well be exceptions. If it is the case where Mexican FOP is not limited to permanent works, would it be useful to edit the information at COM:FOP#Mexico to clarify this issue? --Gazebo (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Nichalp upload script icon.svg

Is anybody able to cleanup the licensing mess there and find a license compatible with all source images? I don't want to file a DR but if there's no common compatible license this will be the only way to go. --Denniss (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I updated some of the licenses, but I'm concerned about the LGPL. Although it is a "weak" copyleft unlike the GPL, I think it would still apply here. Then again, the LGPL is written for software, not artwork, so it may be difficult to interpret. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, en:LGPL doesn't really help there, the whole thing is pretty confusing … I suppose the easiest solution would be to simply use another file from Category:SVG arrow icons and delete the old versions. In any case, the original authors of the single files would still need to be mentioned in the author= field. --El Grafo (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Releasing Creative Commons licensed images into public domain

Can I release Creative Commons licensed images entirely created by myself into the public domain? Editor abcdef (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can. Making stuff more free is always possible, it's the other way round that doesn't work. If you're talking about a file on Commons, just change the default cc-by-sa-3.0 in the licensing section of the file page to PD-self (or better: CC-0). --El Grafo (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Best practice is to keep the old license and add the new license. The older license dosn't become invalid just because you add a more free version. The other way round is possible too but only as an addition to the current license, not as replacement. --Denniss (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes, the attribution and share-alike requirements of the original license do become invalid if the work is released into the public domain, as those requirements rely on copyright to be enforceable. Your argument and advice applies if you add another license, but a public domain release is not a copyright license. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No they don't if the image is already reused onder the original cc license. Keeping the original license also helps reusers to trace back their licensing to the original without checking the original's history. --Denniss (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Shot Informativo programs donated by Concepto Radial, Tec de Monterrey, Campus Ciudad de México

File:Shotinformativofreddymercury-conceptoradialshotinformativo-ivoox3155421.ogg is nominated for Motd. I don´t think that parts of music used here can be accessible under a free license. But I wonder that all files in this category seem to have an "OTRS permission confirmed".. --Pristurus (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Licensing of Geoff Charles photos

I think the files at Category:Photographs by Geoff Charles need a clearer, more understandable license template. The photographer died in 2002, so the photos aren't in the public domain, unless the owner of the copyright has released them. As they're in Category:Images uploaded as part of NLW - WMUK collaboration, I suppose the copyright was first transferred to the library and they then released these photos as public domain, but that's not stated clearly in files such as File:(The poet Robert Evans (Cybi), outside his home, Bryn Eithin, Llangybi) (6347476638).jpg. The "permission" field in the template is filled out with an indication of the source (the National Library of Wales), but no information as to the actual permission whatsoever (public domain? A CC license? - the photos are also all in Category:Files with no machine-readable license because of this). What kind of release, exactly, has the National Library of Wales given for these photos? They were transferred from Flickr with "No known copyright restrictions" as license, which is - for pictures by a photographer who died only recently - a bit too unclear IMHO. @Jason.nlw: , maybe you can help regarding this matter? Also, the template gives the library instead of the photographer as author, and the "date" field is meaninglesss, as it doesn't give the date of the photo's creation (as it should) but, apparently, of digitizing or uploading. I think a bit more care should be applied when uploading files on Commons as part of an official collaboration with a Wikimedia chapter, I have to say... Why even use the flickr detour? Maybe using Commons:GLAMwiki Toolset would have been a better approach? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be either reason #3 or reason #4 on the {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} template. That is sort of like PD-author although it would be the copyright owner, not author exactly, making the release -- in the end it's the copyright owner who needs to make it. I think we had talked about having that template take an argument when we are pretty sure what the reason is to specify an underlying license (reasons #1 and #2 are more a source template for a different license, though #3 and #4 are in fact licenses). Anyways, that project is not a collaboration with Wikimedia Commons; Flickr Commons is a separate initiative where libraries release their images into the public domain and post them on Flickr. Much of the time the copyright has expired, though in some other situations it has not. We are simply copying the images (under the libraries' assertion that there is no copyright) onto Wikimedia Commons. The Flickr upload bots were altered to allow that license through. All of those photographs did pass into the public domain in the UK before being restored in 1996, but as you say, they would normally now be under copyright for decades. It sounds like the author gave his collection of 120,000 negatives to the library in 1975. The library is claiming they have the necessary rights to release them (or maybe the author placed them in the public domain as part of the donation, but I don't see any references to that), and for at least the photos on Flickr, there are no copyright restrictions (which is a more accurate way to say "public domain"). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Well, this isn't just any flickr-to-Commons transfer project. If people transfer (supposedly) free files with more or less strange/incomplete metadata from flickr to Commons because they don't have a better option, because they aren't in touch with the original uploading institution, I understand that fully. But these (Wikimedia) Commons uploads are done by Jason.nlw - as I understand it, the current "Wikimedian in Residence" at the National Library of Wales. The upload on Wikimedia Commons itself is declared a "part of NLW - WMUK collaboration". And if Wikimedia UK is involved, I really wonder why this upload wasn't possible in a more "Wikimedia-like" manner. Wikimedia people know, I suppose, how important correct, transparent licensing is for Wikimedia Commons (unlike the muddle at flickr, where we often don't know whether particular files are really free, and if yes, what kind of "free" exactly). With the GLAMWiki Toolset, we have now a fine tool for that kind of thing. Why on earth - I wonder - upload material not directly to Wikimedia Commons but via flickr if you work in the institution donating the content as a Wikimedian in Residence? Even if the images were uploaded to flickr earlier as part of the "flickr Commons" initiative, there is no need to go that route to get them to Wikimedia Commons. And the upload, as said above, simply didn't go very well: There's now a "permission" field without permission info (a source is not a permission), that surely could have been done better. Also, in the case of Geoff Charles, the Wikipedia article mentions that the NLW wanted to prevent "illegal copying" of the photos as of 2003, but I suppose they changed their mind. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gestumblindi thanks for your advice. This was a test upload using the automated flickr2commons tool. I will therefore manualy add a proper license template in the coming weeks. We just need to agree on which one to use. The NLW holds the copyright on this collection and has released it into the public domain via flickr. As for the NLW template in the permission field, I was simply following the format applied to a previous NLW upload which was coordinated by Robin Owain Wikimedia Wales manager and other Wikimedia UK staff. I will check with them if this needs changing, as it would also need changing on the John Thomas collection which they uploaded to commons. Most of our future uploads will be via Glam Wiki Tools and i intend to follow the format tried and tested by the National Library of Scotland, so there should be no issues in future. Thanks for your help Jason.nlw (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jason, thanks for the reply! I'd suggest to copy this discussion over to the Commons discussion and continue there, to keep things in one place (and as it affects firstly Commons, I think we should discuss it rather there than here). Anyway, I'm very happy to hear that you intend to use the GLAMWiki toolset in the future, I'm sure that will lead to better results that need less rework afterwards (also regarding issues such as the date field). - Regarding the NLW template in the permission field: That's not a problem in itself, the template can stay there, but additionally, there should also be a template in that field that gives information on the actual permission. The images from the Swiss National Library such as File:CH-NB_-_Aarwangen_-_Collection_Gugelmann_-_GS-GUGE-WEIBEL-D-2b.tif are following that approach. The "permission" field in the information template is meant to answer the question: What can I do with this image, what is its copyright status? And I think you'll agree that the NLW template doesn't answer that question. - Another possibility would be to place the templates outside the information template, such as in the Central Library of Solothurn files, e.g. File:Zentralbibliothek_Solothurn_-_A_Kitchen_Maid_of_Soleure_-_a1097.tif. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. I have begun to amend the images in Category:Photographs by Geoff Charles. Here is an example. These images will all be licensed as CC-Zero. The Author field will now include an author template for Geoff Charles, although the problem with the Date field remains for now. To clarify; if the National Library releases images in copyright, and they hold the copyright, we will use the CC-Zero license to release then into the public domain. If copyright has expired we will simply use a public domain template. I hope this helps. However if anyone has any questions I would be happy to hear from you. Jason.nlw (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jason.nlw: Thanks, your example looks much better, and CC-Zero is great! :-) That way, the main issue will be solved. (As information to the other readers: Part of this discussion was copied over from Jason's English Wikipedia user talk to keep it in one place). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Duke Nukem's book copyright status

During the known story with a macaca the authorities stressed one more time any non-human entities cannot enjoy copyright protection and their creations are PD ipso facto. But recently I stumbled upon a book, fully officially written in 1996 by Duke Nukem:
Duke Nukem (1996) Duke Nukem does the Internet ISBN: 9780782120387.
Would it be correct to claim its text as PD? --NeoLexx (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No. It's a safe bet the text was authored by a human (ghost writer); it's just that they are anonymous (or using Duke Nukem as a pseudonym). The PD situation would only come if a non-human actually wrote the words, which is an... unlikely situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On a tangentially related note: what's the copyright on computer written books? Examples here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If we actually get to that point, probably no copyright. Not sure we are there yet; the details of each situation could be different (perhaps there was a large amount of human-authored boilerplate put in the final result; that could still carry a copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to stress that I'm old enough so I don't believe in Santa in chimney and Duke Nukem writing books :-) Yet the law doesn't usually go by someone (dis)believes but by actual facts and current regulations. The author claimed to be Duke Nuckem, this info registered in all library profiles. This info straight stated in the book preface: "Now, one of the Cyber Era's greatest heroes has written a "no-holds-barred" book". Nobody ever claimed otherwise (written by human) or stated that Duke Nuckem is not the author true name but someone's pseudonym. In The Urantia Book case the court ruled out the possibility for angels to hold copyright, only for humans. It is logical to assume then that computer personalities are out of luck as well. Unless and this is what I'm wondering now, in the US there is a new law or a precedent, that any evidently illogical authorship claim automatically counts as a pseudonym of a human being? So like authors "Duke Nuckem", "Angels", "Peter Pan" etc. are pseudonyms ipso facto, no proofs needed. --NeoLexx (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can present evidence that there was not a human being (yet still earthly) authoring the sequences of words chosen, then you might have a chance. Otherwise, yes, the assumption will be that it was written by a human. The words came from somewhere ;-) The Urantia case clearly thought so, and gave at least a 28-year copyright. The question in that one was whether the Foundation's copyright renewal was valid, which in turn traded on if the original was a work for hire, and failing that if renewal rights vested in the Foundation or reverted to the heirs. If a human claims to just be a conduit... well, they would still be the author. The words came through them. What they were inspired by is not relevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been registered with the copyright office with Sybex, Inc. as the copyright claimant. It doesn't show us many details, but the copyright registration alone is a prima facie claim in a court of law. I think w:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. is a relevant case; just because it says it's written by Duke Nukem doesn't really matter if no one in their right mine would believe it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bummer... :-( :-) Thank you for your analysis, explained it at the Russian Copyright forum. --NeoLexx (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

w:New York-New York Hotel and Casino

Are its photos subject to copyright? They are replicas of US landmarks, but many serve as buildings for hotel rooms and casinos. --George Ho (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is freedom of panorama is the USA for architecture anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty replica is copyrightable, but does de minimis apply? --George Ho (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Yann (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

VOA images

We are having a discussion about the use of a VOA image here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:VOA_Heinlein_-_Somali_refugees_September_2011_-_09.jpg

The VOA Terms of Use, here, state:

Personal Use: The content appearing on the VOA News and Information Websites is intended for your personal, noncommercial use only. You may download the downloadable content items appearing on the VOA News and Information Websites for your personal use only.

Vendor Content: The VOA News and Information Websites may contain text, video, audio, images, graphics, and other copyrighted material furnished by the Associated Press, Reuters, AFP, ABC News, and other content providers (collectively, “Vendor Content”). The Vendor Content is licensed for use in VOA programming only. Vendor Content is copyright protected and other than as stated above, may not be copied, redistributed, sold, or published without the express permission of the above-mentioned vendors or other copyright owners. Images, graphics, or video programming on VOA News and Information Websites may include a visual mark indicating the inclusion of any Vendor Content. You should assume all audio and radio programming on VOA News and Information Websites includes Vendor Content unless VOA specifically informs you otherwise.

You agree that you are solely responsible for your use of any content or program materials that you access through VOA News and Information Websites, including any copyrighted portion(s) of those materials. You further agree that you shall secure all necessary licenses from VOA AND FROM all persons or organizations that hold a copyright in any portion of program materials you access through VOA News and Information Websites before making any use of those program materials, except uses of program materials permitted by the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended.

The source image has an AP tag, here (number 9 in the gallery).

As per the Vendor Content para, this seems to imply that the content should be considered to be Vendor Content under copyright. The original uploader says that the tag was not present at the time of upload, that tags are added subsequently and that the photographer works for VOA. However, doesn't the TOU policy say that the visual mark indicates that it is Vendor Content and therefore under copyright? Does this not therefore mean that VOA believe it to be such? JMWt (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Much of the content on VOA's site is taken from AP, correct. However... that image has a credit of "VOA - P. Heinlein" which seems to indicate it was indeed authored by a VOA employee. In looking, this article is about Peter Heinlein and an incident in Ethiopia, and states "Heinlein, an east Africa correspondent based in Addis Ababa, has worked for VOA since 1988." I think almost all of VOA's images eventually add the AP tag, whether or not it came from them (or went the other way, which I'm sure happens as well). I would trust the written credit more. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-1977 US images with no copyright notice

Just to be sure: if a pre-1977 photograph made in the USA does not have a copyright notice on it, is it free to use or not? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That depends on its authorship and publication history. Unpublished works must predate 1895, or where the author is known he or she must have died before 1945, to be copyright-free in the USA. Works first published in the USA without a notice before 1978 are indeed PD, but that’s not how I read your phrasing. Things get complicated for works that were first published outside the USA or since 1978, regardless of where or when they were “made”; see COM:Hirtle chart.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"World eBook Library"

At the site <http://cache.worldlibrary.net/articles/bhp_tower> I happened upon material apparently copied from Wikipedia and Commons, including my own photographs licensed for free use with attribution. Since I could not find any attribution, I used the site's contact facility to send the following message: "You are displaying my photographs without attribution, as required under the 'public-domain' licence which I specified when I made them available under the username Bjenks to Wikimedia Commons and/or Wikipedia (from which your content appears to have been copied). Please immediately desist from displaying any of my photographs which are not duly attributed under the terms of the licence. Please acknowledge receipt of this instruction, in default of which I intend to take remedial action against you." Adding insult to injury, the website carries a copyright notice:

Copyright © 2015 World Public Library. All rights reserved.

Does any other user have information about this site and its perceived abuses? Bjenks (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bjenks: The entire thing seems to be copied from the English Wikipedia, with proper attribution. But you're right, they need to attribute your photo separately.

There is a mention of a most likely affiliated site on Wikipedia: It seems they didn't attribute the text before, and perhaps the messages sent got them to attribute the text now. So maybe your message will help them attribute the images as well.

If they don't respond, I advise sending a message like this so they understand the situation:

While I appreciate that you attribute text from Wikipedia, images on Wikipedia may be under different licenses and must be attributed separately. My photograph you display at <http://cache.worldlibrary.net/articles/bhp_tower> is originally from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BHP_tower_gnangarra-10.jpg> and is available under CC BY 2.5 AU. Please attribute the photograph or desist from displaying it. [Add legal threats here.] (The italicized message text is dedicated to the public domain under CC0 1.0 Universal ({{Cc0}}) so others may adapt it for their own purposes.)

Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 04:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the WMF doesn't itself doesn't act to enforce the copyright claims of contributors, but it sounds like a DMCA takedown notice would be in order. worldlibrary.net is a GoDaddy registration, with the following info...

World Public Library Association

P.O. Box 22687

Honolulu, Hawaii 96823

1-808-292-2068

Webmaster@WorldLibrary.net

Hope this helps. As a US organization, they are subject to the DCMA. Revent (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just as an additional note, their rendering of enwiki articles is terribly ugly. (lol) Revent (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and many thanks for all this. I'm actually more affronted by their cheek than the propriety of attribution. I've now had a polite reply from a Salvatore Capriano - Help Desk, Technical Assistance Dept, who writes "I would be glad to assist you with your request. Can you please let me know which article you are referring too?" (sic) I guess I'll have to make him a list! Bjenks (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just in case, you wrote public domain licence above, but you actually meant CC BY, or similar. Ignoring {{CC0}} as special case PD isn't a licence, and there is no such thing as a PD BY.

–Be..anyone (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Big Wapwallopen Creek by Thomas Addison Richards

Is this in public domain. It was made in 1852, and the creator died in 1900, but it doesn't say when (if ever) it was published. --Jakob (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

See Commons:Hirtle chart. It appears to be in public domain, even if unpublished. Ruslik (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Free image status of the Republic (political organisation) logo

I would like to know if this image [[2]] for the Republic logo on the English Wikipedia can be transferred to Commons. On 8 February 2015 it was listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files concerning its copyright status in the United Kingdom (see its listing using this link)[[3]]. I personally flagged the image as being in the public domain for failing to meet the threshold of originality (to the best of my knowledge) in the United States. Previously it had been used under a claim of fair use. I am under the impression the the image's status as a free image is governed by its status in the US as Wikimedia's servers are based there. I pointed this out in the image's listing on 15 February 2015 but there had been no replies. On 11 March 2015 the image was retagged as PD-ineligible-USonly. On 7 February 2015 I uploaded File:Republic (political organisation) symbol.jpg, which contains the Republic logo without the text, to Commons and there have so far been no disputes over its status. Tk420 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

On Commons any image must be in public domain both in USA and in its country of origin. As it is appears to be in public domain only in USA it can not be transferred to Commons. Ruslik (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My image is uploaded by other user under his name

User:Страна Гор uploaded the image made by me (he apparently found it elsewhere in the web) under his own name. I don't mind to have this image here but would prefer it to be under my name. What should I better do?

By the way other maps uploaded recently by him (like File:Northeast Caucasus languages.svg.png, File:Azerbaijan ethnic 2015.png, File:Dagestan1989 ethnic groups.png, File:The ethnic groups in Dagestan.png) are also found in the web and I strongly doubt they are made by him. -Koryakov Yuri (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess the easiest would be if you upload another version (which can be identical to the first one), and I then suppress the first version.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That would fix the upload log, and you can also edit the Author on the File page directly. To avoid possible deletion requests in future, it would also be a good idea to note where it was originally published and get a license reviewer to check that the source website has the same license, or send confirmation of the license using COM:OTRS. --ghouston (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Страна Гор for the others. --ghouston (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Portraits of Anne Frank

Hi, What do you think about importing pictures of Anne Frank, like en:File:Anne Frank.jpg? IMO, it is either under {{Anonymous-EU}} or taken by some members of her family, who all died more than 70 years ago. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Otto Frank (her father) died in 1980. It appears that one was a passport photo from May 1942, not a family photo... which probably is anonymous, but then the question becomes when was it published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This photo is from "Anne Frank Collection" of the Amsterdam museum of her, used for the current site design. And Getty comments are pretty straightforward: "journalist license" only, more restrictions apply if 5 or more images combined. So from the point of view of the museum is is all holly theirs. It is casual for us to disregard even most strong museum believes about copyrights :-) so like not an answer but a current standings overview. --NeoLexx (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In the event that a photograph is anonymous, you must show that the photograph was published more than 70 years ago (or else it won't be in the public domain in the source country) and more than 95 years ago (or else it won't be in the public domain in the United States). It would seem that there was little reason to publish photographs of the person before the end of WWII, and WWII ended less than 70 years ago, so there are presumably no photographs which were published more than 70 years ago. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I thought there is also the option in the EU/NL anonymous and not published with the permission of the photographer within 70 years? --Hannolans (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  - Yes, but for a passport photo, I think there was probably implicit permission for the Frank family to publish, and it has definitely been published since. That would avoid the 25-year publication right, but it would also probably mean we are within the 70-year anonymous period, unless the distribution from the passport photo maker to the Franks in 1942 was considered publication in itself. If not, I don't think there is a chance it was published before 1947 (when the diary was first published... no idea if the photos were included even then). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    - Publication normally means distribution of copies to the public. If the photograph was taken on behalf of the family, I'd assume that only one photograph was offered and that the photograph wasn't offered to anyone other than family members. There is no chance that the photograph was published before the publication of the diary. Some photographs of her might have been published even later. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

LiveLeak logo

Is LiveLeak logo OK for {{PD-textlogo}}? Or dot of “i” / video camera has originality? --XXN (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The camera seems too simple. But is better to make a simpler version of the logo (without the camera and the reflected text) preferably in SVG, and then upload to Commons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no chance that the logo is a {{PD-textlogo}}. Even a simple border is too complex, see [4]. Page 1 contains two logos: one copyrighted, one not. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
A simple border would not be copyrightable. The referenced one was a border, plus an arced section with a bit of backgrounding, and that begins to get in the area of where you can get an arrangement copyright. But I tend to agree this one might be in the same area, and even more likely to be honest -- the camera graphic could be enough on its own. And this is a UK logo, which has a much lower threshold than the US, so I would not upload it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The relationship between what the template says and the actual legislation is really weak. Here you have what the text says:

No son objeto de protección las leyes, las disposiciones gubernativas, proyectos de ley, actas, acuerdos, deliberaciones y dictámenes de los órganos y organismos públicos y traducciones oficiales de los textos anteriores. Las sentencias de los tribunales pueden ser reproducidas por cualquiera, luego que lo hayan sido oficialmente sujetándose el editor al texto auténtico

Opinions? --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 07:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The template links to that section, which is indeed very weak, and not what the template says, which is much more extensive. Someone who reads Spanish well should research, review and correct. As it stands, the template is incorrect. C records, did you have some other document in mind? --Abd (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I do read Spanish well ;-) but I don't trust my translation into English. I can try a sketch and let a more fluent English speaker (write in fact) takes care of polishing the translation. Would it be right? --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 22:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is not that source with the material quoted, but you could translate it, as it is, on the Talk page attached to the Template. The point would be to cover public domain in Nicaragua, and I'm pretty sure that the snippet of law quoted is not the whole story. So the research you will do is into what is public domain in Nicaragua, I'd think. Place links to sources on Talk, with decent translations. I see that the document linked does have a section, "Del Dominio Público." I can guess what that means.... It is not what you have quoted. You will need to review much more of the document. --Abd (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I can try. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 08:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Only articles 16, 43 (Freedom of Panorama) seem to apply. Articles 40 and 42 could be regarded as releasing the rights of certain types of works, but the limitations introduced IMHO make them useless. In short, only article 16 supports some of the statements in the template (namely (b) official texts of a political, legislative, administrative or judicial nature, and official translations thereof;). The rest of claims cannot be sustained in any way. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 09:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Discasto, I think you are looking only at that one source. I would think that the template would cover public domain in general in Nicaragua. Not only that one source of law, unless there is no other. Public domain is obviously more than what you are saying. The template may be misleading if those other matters are not covered in the cited source.

This is not my field, for sure. I'm just saying how you can proceed. Basically, on that Talk page, answer the question, with sources, "What is public domain per Nicaraguan law and practice?" Then the template may be corrected. I suspect that the list is correct, or nearly so, and the error may only be in ascribing this to that law. --Abd (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't really agree with you. Copyright in Nicaragua are regulated... through the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (there is an additional regulation that states, in item 10, that The limits to the exploitation rights described in [..] must be, as they are exceptional, interpreted in a restrictive way). There are no other places to look at. You see, here you have the list of claims:

(a) the ideas, theories, concepts, scientific discoveries, procedures, working methods, or mathematical concepts as such and inventions, contained in a work, whatever the manner of the adoption, writing, explanation or expression thereof; this actually talks about items that cannot be protected by means of patents; whether an invention is in the public domain or not, it should have been clarified in this law, but nothing is said
(b) official texts of a political, legislative, administrative or judicial nature, and official translations thereof; clarified in article 16, right
(c) official symbols of the State, public authorities and organizations, such as armorial bearings, seals, flags, emblems, shields, badges and medals; abusive deduction from article 16, as only if said symbols are described in official text they become public domain
(d) means of payment; same comment as before
(e) news and press information; (View Article 36) abusive interpretation of articles 40 and 42
(f) simple facts and data. fine, but nothing to do with the copyright law

Of course I'll take the discussion to the template talk page, but sincerely I don't expect any further participation :-( --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 22:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Political party posters

Can posters such as the example be uploaded on Wikipedia? They are copied from Flickr, where they had a CC-BY-SA designation. How can we be sure that the designer of the poster has published them with the correct licence? Elly (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, In this case, the Flickr account seems to be the official account of the party. So fine to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oké, thanks, I will take no further action then. Elly (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs

Hi, I created this template based on Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs. I hope it is OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

image Author Michael J. Tougias

This image has been marked for deletion due to alleged copyright violation. I am the photographer and owner of the image. I have given permission to use it as the page I am creating is about the author pictured. 3AlisonO (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)3AlisonO

See Commons:OTRS for instructions. Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Pictures taken from screens

Hi,

what is the position on creative common pictures, that were taken from live feeds/projection screens? Is a camera operator of a live feed a copyright holder, and thereby these copyrighted derivates? Under Category:Pictures taken from projection screens are hundreds of pictures, which are affeted by this question.--CennoxX (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In the European Union and possibly elsewhere, the "producer" of a video recording holds the copyright to the video recording for 50 years from publication. I don't know how the producer is defined. I don't know whether the video recording right only applies to copies of the video in "video form" or also to distribution of individual frames.

In some countries, the "producer" of a photographic image holds the right to the photographic image. The "producer" of a photographic image is typically the photographer, which would seem to be the camera man. This right exists in some European countries, with the term varying from 20 to 50 years, sometimes counted from creation, sometimes from publication. A single frame from a film is a photograph unless it is an animated film.

In some cases, the frames may meet the threshold of originality. If so, the picture has an "author" who holds the copyright to the picture for a very long time. The author's right only applies of the frame meets the threshold of originality, but the producer's rights also apply to other film frames. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The answer appears to misunderstand the question. A "live projection screen" is not a "video recording." It is not a "photographic image," either, because it is not fixed into a form. A photo of what is on a projection screen at some event is quite similar to a direct photo of what the screen is showing, assuming that this is a live feed, as described. It has been "assisted" to get a clearer view. If what is being shown is copyrighted material, then the photo is a derivative work, but that would not be a live feed. Notice that it is possible that what is on the projection screen is also recorded. That is, however, a separate work. If a person was there and had the right to photograph the event, they could photograph the live projection screen. The photo is not derived from the recording. --Abd (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As you mention, if someone is recording the same image which is also being displayed on the projection screen, then it is fixed and copyrighted, and I'm not so sure that it's impossible to create a derivative work. The question is if the photograph contains an amount beyond de minimis of the copyrightable expression of the recorded work. The photo may not have been taken directly from the recording, but that is immaterial -- if the content is copyrighted, a work can be derivative no matter which copy of the work it was taken from. Similarly, if you record a live TV broadcast, your recording is simply a copy of the original and not an independent work. You would commit copyright infringement if you then re-broadcast or distribute copies of your recording. The U.S. law's definition of fixation has this clause: A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission. That was added specifically to protect live broadcasts, to give the producers copyright over the content (no matter where it was displayed). A live projection screen at a concert is a little more problematic as the content may or may not have been recorded at the same time, but ... if it was, there could easily be an issue. We have deleted some pictures of that type in the past but I'm sure many other examples have been uploaded. It may come down to how likely was the projected image to have also been recorded. Taking pictures of TV broadcasts similarly is not OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl. It can get tricky. The definition refers to live "broadcasts" which are effectively published by being broadcast. I agree that my concept of "fixed in form" was inadequate. I am thinking more of the people at a conference where projection screen is shown. They could photograph the stage directly, or from the screen. What is the difference? There is a video camera feeding the screen. That feed can be recorded or not. The person taking a photo of the screen is recording a frame. A person operating a video recorder is recording the whole feed. The people being shown are creating content, display, and sometimes it seems copyright law forgets about them. The real authorship of the content is there.

It could happen that the video feed is actually broadcast locally -- or live on the internet. There could be a hundred people recording it simultaneously.

I'll agree that if the producers of the event made a recording, with permissions from the "actors," they would likely have copyright. It should be similar to a play, an artistic performance. Can someone in the audience record the play with their phone and publish it? Commonly, I've seen this be prohibited. No cameras allowed. Videotapes or DVDs for sale. --Abd (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether something has been fixed in some kind of form is irrelevant with respect to Swedish copyright law, which only requires that the material has been created. Maybe United States copyright law is different. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Berne Convention says "(2) It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form." The US does follow this rule.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In the past, photos of a projection screen at a conference have been deleted because [recording] is so inexpensive that it is very unlikely that this video was not recroded [sic!] – I guess that decision could just be applied quite universally to photos of projection screens at medium-to-large-sized events? FDMS 4 22:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Most picture in the category are from Comic-Con, where the panels at least from the last two years were recorded.[5][6][7][8][9]… Is it a difference, if the recording was published, or is it only essential, that recordings exist.--CennoxX (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That they exist (or even existed). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about a photo I nominated for deletion

I recently nominated File:Helias Doundoulakis in Camp Crowder, MO, 1945.JPG for deletion because the owner of the picture is typically the person who took the picture, not the person in the picture. However, I think the Wikipedia article about the subject benefits significantly from having this photo, so I studied Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_domain. The image was taken in the United States, allegedly by a fellow soldier who is probably dead. I see no reason to believe that the photo was ever previously published in any medium before it was uploaded to Commons by a user claiming to be his son, and who has stated that the picture belongs to the subject's private collection. Shouldn't good faith be assumed in such a case? If so, is the file acceptable using the public domain rationale? Quoting:

"for works first published before 1964, copyright lasts 28 years after publication (and is therefore currently expired) unless the owner filed for renewal (during the window between 27 and 28 years after publication) in which case rights were extended to 95 years after first publication — the large majority of works published before 1964 have passed into the public domain, but it is imperative to determine that copyright was not renewed (which can be done through an online search at the Copyright Office for works published since 1951)"

Shouldn't good faith be assumed when it is stated on the file page that the image was taken in 1945? And, as I said, there is no evidence of publication before uploading it to Commons. And assuming good faith on the part of the uploader, the copyright was not renewed. The uploader wrote to me, telling me that a fellow soldier simply took that picture of Mr. Doundoulakis, gave it to him, and nothing else happened.

~~Many thanks in advance for any advice, as well as for your time and generosity.~~ Dontreader (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The uploader (the son of the subject), has just now informed me that this image is possibly in a book, so I'll just let the nomination for deletion process continue, and I'll abandon the public domain idea. All the best, Dontreader (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Images uploaded by MarshallADG

I am reviewing an article on the English wikipedia which uses many photos from the Marshall Aerospace website uploaded to Commons by MarshallADG (talk · contribs). I assume that the editor is someone associated with the company, since the material is somewhat promotional, but I noticed that the files all say "own work". Is there any documentation that Marshall Aerospace actually freely licensed this material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma (talk • contribs)

Hi StarryGrandma, The only remaining image I see from that user is a COM:TOO logo, File:Marshall-aerospace-defence-group-logo.jpg; the remaining uploads were deleted, see [10] for the list. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Free content or not?

While not specifically released under CC-BY, the Ralli SM photo gallery states "You may freely use the photos in various media, but the photographer's name must be mentioned while using photos." Would this count as freely usable content since the only restriction is attributing photographs to "AKK Sports Ltd/Toni Ollikainen", or is CC-BY required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbtflakes (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)

I think CC-BY is too specific for this situation. {{Attribution}} may be a better fit. However, I wonder if "freely use ... in various media" is clear enough to indicate that the media may be modified and used for commercial purposes as well. I think it might be, but perhaps other editors would like to comment on this too. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The permission is not free. The phrase "in various media" is a restrictions on where the work may be used. The permission does not allow modifications. The permission does not allow redistribution under the same conditions even if the websites terms will change, therefore there is no freedom to redistribute copies. --Martin H. (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pbtflakes: perhaps you would like to contact the website owner and ask if he or she is willing to release the photographs (or selected ones) under a CC-BY or CC-ZERO licence. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Photos from Bean Pole blog

Hello, I've noticed that posts from Bean Pole blog have a CC-BY-4.0 icon under the last photo (see this, for example). However, since the photos are from official photoshoots for the brand and not from public events, I don't know whether I can upload them to Commons. What's your opinion? --Chiyako92 (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Chiyako92: I think it is a logically same situation with Images from LG Electronics' official Flickr account, since the blog is obviously owned by Bean Pole brand. You are able to find a link to the blog from Official Bean Pole website. --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I'll upload some photos, then; in the meantime, I've created the category Images from Bean Pole blog. --Chiyako92 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Licence tag for documents in respect of which UK Crown copyright has expired

What licence tag should I use for documents in respect of which UK Crown copyright has expired? {{PD-UKGov}} is only for images, so I ended up using {{PD-because}} for "File:Letters Patent Establishing the Court of Judicature at Prince of Wales' Island, Singapore, and Malacca, in the East-Indies (27 November 1826; published February 1827).pdf". Is there a more appropriate tag? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-UKGov}} is the correct tag. Numbered point 1 is just for photographs since they had a special term, but points 2 and 3 cover any other types of work. I imagine point 2 is the one which applies here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, but the tag says "This artistic work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain." (Emphasis added.) Also, from what I was able to ascertain (hence my use of {{PD-because}}), the position concerning Crown copyright under section 18 of the Copyright Act 1911 was that government works are copyrighted for 50 years from the date of publication. None of the three situations mentioned in {{PD-UKGov}} mentions this. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The word "artistic" seems to be misplaced and should probably be removed. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I just went to correct the template, more precisely to align with the wording of the act, by removing the word "artistic" but I am locked out of editing it. Annoying. --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the discussion at "Template talk:PD-UKGov#Non-artistic works", the tag is only accurate for artistic works and not for literary works, which is why the wording was changed back in 2008. If this is correct, we really need to have a separate licence tag for literary works. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The section of the act referenced uses the term "work", not "artistic work". The discussion you refer to seems to have the opinion of just one person rather than a consensus. For the avoidance of doubt it states:

18 - Provisions as to Government publications: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work.

--Fæ (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a flowchart on page 14 of this nationalarchives.gov.uk PDF. There is a difference for an artistic work -- the term is 50 years from creation in that case. Photographs are slightly different; it is date of creation if before 1957 and date of publication if created later. So... for photographs created before 1957, plus artistic works other than engravings, the term is 50 years from creation. For engravings plus all kinds of non-artistic works, it looks like it is 50 years from publication. So in looking closer, it is point #2 which applies to all other types of works; point #1 is just for photographs, and point #3 is for non-engraving and non-photograph artistic works. I don't think we need another tag, but I think we should remove "artistic" from the top of the tag and only keep it on point #3. The numbered points all look correct to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice summary. Perhaps an admin can suggest or go ahead with improving the licence template, as only an admin can edit it? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Fæ: There is an important thing in the British copyright law which you might have overlooked. Search for the words "Duration of copyright in existing works" at [11]. Some pre-existing works are subject to the term given in the copyright law from 1956. According to Article 10 of the w:Copyright Duration Directive, Britain is supposed to use whichever is longer of the old British term and the common EU term. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance for Crown Copyright works. The duration of copyright is defined as the duration of Crown Copyright, nothing more. In this way, the rest of European law can be put aside as the Crown has her rights protected by UK law. --Fæ (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct, the EU copyright directives had no effect on Crown Copyright duration since that is effectively a copyright owner placing them in the public domain. There is a duration situation with unpublished works and the special term they were given in 1989, but I don't think it will be relevant for us until 2039 or 2040. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Does point 2 in {{PD-UKGov}} ("It was commercially published prior to 1965") correctly capture the situation mentioned in the useful UK National Archives chart mentioned by Carl? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It actually should just be "published", not "commercially published", as the latter is for works first published after August 1, 1989 (the effective date of the 1988 Copyright Act which altered some of the terms; those changes won't have any real effect on us for a while though). But yes, 50 years from publication is the general Crown Copyright term for works which are not artistic works, engravings, nor photographs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. How do we go about proposing changes to the wording of the licence tag? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

CC BY 3.0 vs CC BY 4.0

What is the practical difference between Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) and CC Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)? Editor abcdef (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, that's an interesting topic covered in the PDF or the Wiki-pages linked on Open content guide. There are subtle differences, and at the end of the day it's your decision. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

See https://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions for a full 'authoritative' table of the differences between versions. Most of the differences are not a big deal, really, such as allowing 30 days for a reuser to correct failure to comply after being notified, and preventing someone from CC-licensing material but then 'protecting' it with some kind of technological measure. 4.0 does explicitly require you to provide the URI of the source as part of the attribution, and removes a requirement to maintain the exact 'title' of the licensed work (but most of the images on Commons don't have a formal title). Under 4.0, you also explicitly must indicate if you have modified the work. Revent (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issues regarding two product photos

These photos were uploaded by others and the photos themselves are freely licensed, but the copyright situation as far as the depicted product packaging (see COM:PACKAGING) seems unclear.

File:Dg milk containers.jpg - The lettering on the bottle on the left seems unlikely to be copyrighted, but some of the design on the carton on the right might be (any idea as to how old the carton design is?)
File:Ipodclassic120gb.jpg - The design on the top of the box might be de minimis; this seems doubtful, given that the box seems to be prominently depicted and that the design covers a lot of the box top. (There is also the question as to whether the software display on the iPod is de minimis, given that that the display is from proprietary software.)

--Gazebo (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing interesting on the iPod photo, plain text menus indicating the focus item with reverse video is vintage 1990 curses. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The top of the iPod box might not be de minimis in my opinion. I would be much more comfortable if that was cropped out/blurred, sue to the copyrightable image on top of the box. The text on the side is not copyrightable, but the "iPod-image" is. But it is a judgement call, and my standars for de minimis is very low, compared to others. Josve05a (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Different versions of CC-BY-SA

Hello, I'd like upload photos that I created to Flickr and Commons under CC-BY-SA. However, Flickr only makes it possible to choose version 2.0, though I'd prefer the most recent one, 4.0. Is it possible to dual-license them under any license from 2.0 to 4.0 or similar? Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are allowed to relicense and dual-license images you own as you want. Just bare in mind that if it once was licensed under 2.0 and you relicense it as 4.0 here, people are still allowed to use it under the terms of 2.0 and/or 4.0 as they please. Even if you do not mention the 2.0 license here, or remove it from Flickr Josve05a (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If the image is licensed on Flickr under 2.0, if you use a different license here (even a later version of the CC license) you should really either note in the image description on Flickr that it's also under 4.0, or submit a verification to OTRS (since your wiki account is not 'provably' the same as the Flickr account, and a 'third party' can't relicense a work under a newer version, they can only do so for an adaptation). Other than that, it's perfectly fine to offer it under different licenses different places, or multiple licenses here. Revent (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyrights on unfinished buildings in Romania

I know that buildings in Romania are considered copyrighted and there is no FOP, but what about unfinished buildings like the one I photographed at https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/15397494134/in/set-72157649308479709 ? This has been sitting unfinished over a quarter of a century, but no one ever deliberately designed it to look like this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeking input on Flight path data deletion tag

Hi, one of the biggest news stories worldwide is the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525‎. An administrator on the Flightradar24 forum released a CSV and KML file for the media to use, and stated "I was talking with a lady on CNN for almost 1 hour yesterday to explain the data in first post"

Can anyone contribute to Commons:Deletion requests/File:4U9525 flight path v1.svg

Thanks, Aronzakcommons2 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright holder

Mr. Listener (from «Historical Company») asked Mr. Speaker to tell about his past life, and recorded this speech with a voice recorder. Who owns the copyright — Mr. Speaker or «Historical Company»? Who has to give a permission? Thanks. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It depends. The easiest way to explain is to quote the US Copyright Office (the Copyright Compendium)...

There are two types of sound recording authorship:
* Authorship in the performance(s); and
* Authorship in the production of the sound recording.
Generally, both the performer and the producer of a sound recording of a musical performance or spoken word performance contribute copyrightable authorship to the sound recording. In some cases, however, the main or sole contribution may be production authorship (as in a recording of bird songs, where there is no human performance) or the main contribution may be performance authorship (as in a recorded performance where the only production involved is to push the “record” button).

In your given example, the speaker has a copyright in the 'words', and the listener 'might' have a seperate copyright in the recording itself, but it would be for actual 'production work', not for just asking the question and pushing the button. Revent (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As extemporaneous, non-fixed speech, I'm not so sure the person has a copyright in the "words". In some countries they might. The recording is a separate copyright. I'm not sure there is much else needed to get a sound recording copyright other than pressing the record button, though in some cases they may need the performer's permission to make the recording in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Second try writing a response, I misunderstood you at first, because what I said was unclear.... I did not mean a claim in the 'text' of what they were saying (if they did have such a claim, it would be a completely different issue, of a literary work) but in the spoken words, the 'performance' of telling the story, that performance becoming fixed when recorded. That's separate from any possible 'production' copyright, though my read is that the actual requirement for a production copyright is extremely low... anything more than acting as a remote control device for the start and stop buttons would probably qualify. Revent (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Performer's rights are separate from copyright, at least so far... not all countries have them. Also, whether someone being interviewed would count as a "performer" would probably also depend on country-by-country laws. There is a Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, not yet in force (ratified by five countries) which gives the definition: "performers" are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As is common in similar discussions, I have found, the concept of co-authorship is often neglected, it is assumed that there is a single author and thus a single owner. With COM:Own work/Bystander selfie (a draft), it is arguable that the person who held the camera could have author rights, and this has often been stated on Commons, as if it were an inflexible rule (it is not, there are circumstances where the ordinary assumption fails, and a bystander selfie, where the bystander does not retain the latent image and could not publish it if he or she wanted to, is a very special -- though common -- case), however, the subject clearly is a kind of author; the person telling their own story is definitely participating in creation, and centrally, not just trivially. The person recording the speech, do they have rights? That is likely, and the circumstances described above may indicate permission for release. If they are co-authors, under U.S. law, either one may release the material, consultation with the other is not needed. However, as with a photo of a living subject here, whether or not the subject owns copyright, we may want indication of permission. This, I'm sure, has precedent here, which should be consulted. If the speaker is notable, the speaker's permission may not be needed, just as with photos.
In the example above, the one recording might be an author preparing a book, and would clearly have permission to quote (unless there was some other agreement). While a definitive universal answer may not be possible, absent better specification of the actual conditions, Commons is not for legal advice, we make decisions here on inclusion, based on proper license information, which does not always need to know who owns something, but rather whether or not the uploader has the right to release under our license, or permission has been shown elsewhere. The general answer here would be, my opinion, that the one recording or the speaker, either one, could release the recording. They do not both need to consent. Any dispute over that would be between them, and would not impact the rights of a re-user, unless there were fraud here, which is something we cannot completely avoid. (I.e, say the recording were made without permission, the speaker is not notable, and the uploader has lied.) --Abd (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
What does not being able to publish if they wanted to have to do with anything? It's established law that if you send a letter to someone, even if you don't retain a copy of that letter, you still retain the copyright. Same thing with selling a painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-authorship is a different concept than this. With say a recording of a song, there can be separate copyrights -- the recording itself, the musical composition, and the lyrics. They have nothing at all to do with each other; there could be three separate copyright owners (*not* co-authors). You probably need permission of all three to distribute (and the person doing the recording most probably also needs the permission of the performers to be a legal recording, depending on performer's rights -- for phonograms in particular those rights are pretty universal but once beyond that they get spottier). Co-authorship is where two or more people contribute to the same copyrightable work. Even in a book, there can be multiple copyrights -- the text, each illustration, and the arrangement of all of it. If someone writes the text and another chooses and arranges the illustrations, that is not co-authorship -- those are separate works. If two people write the text, editing it between themselves, then the text is co-authored. As for the photo bystander, for co-authorship, you are arguing that two people had input into the artistic expression in the photograph (maybe one chooses the angle, another the framing, etc.) The fact that one cannot publish may not matter. There are always situations which can blur the lines or present difficult questions for the law as written, but if the bystander was solely responsible for the expression and therefore fully owned the copyright, a judge would have to find a way within the law as written to give the other person enough rights to use the photo as desired. The law is now very clear that any transfer of copyright must be written, so that cannot be the case (before 1978, some situations were ruled implied transfer of copyright but it now must be explicit so judges no longer have that latitude). They could rule that the first person has much wider fair-use rights than normal, or there was at least an implied license for use in most situations. They could try for a work-for-hire though the written law now has very specific criteria which might be difficult to get around. If there was co-authorship, then both people have rights. But each situation could be very different. In the situation for this section however, there is no co-authorship -- probably just the one copyright of the recording, which Historical Company probably owns as a work for hire. If Mr. Speaker wrote down his speech before giving it, then there is also a copyright in that text. If local law grants copyright to all speech even if unfixed and extemporaneous, then that copyright can exist as well, and both copyrights would need to be licensed. (There can be some different details given a particular law may differ -- e.g. whether the copyright owner of a composition has the right to restrict distribution of a recording once permission to make the recording itself was given. If I recall I'm not sure that India gave that right, in which case permission from Historical Company might be enough, but the U.S. is probably different.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl. We have a strong tendency to do what courts do not usually do, which is to attempt to derive universal principles which we then apply to the case before us, as if there were some determining truth behind decisions. Real courts do not decide the hypothetical. They decide specific cases, following statutory and common law, and the latter includes an understanding of the intentions of the parties. Being human, courts also opine, that's called "dicta," and it can be a clue as to how they will decide in a different situation.

There is no doubt that a license is airtight if all the possible co-authors and human subjects have agreed in writing. From my reading, law on co-authorship varies. In the U.S., however, any co-author has the right to license. This does not deprive other co-authors of "rights," but it provides an avenue for recourse. If a co-author's release injures another co-author, the allegedly injured co-author has the right to compensation *from the releasing co-author,* and may sue. The plaintiff may not recover damages from a good-faith user of the material, under license from the other co-author.

So our situation on Commons becomes much simpler than attempting to determine who other possible co-authors are. I'm not going to get into international complications. Commons may host if such hosting is allowed in the U.S. What we would want to determine is whether or not the work is released by a co-author, someone who would have a prima-facie claim of co-authorship.

If the circumstances described in the question here were shown to exist, Speaker has, at least, co-authorship rights. I raised the Bystander selfie issue because it has been said, on Commons, that the bystander, the photographer, must be the copyright owner, excluding the subject, and this has also applied to videos, where the subject does not just sit there, and would presumably apply to videos with sound recording. Here, there is more involvement by the Listener. Listener interviews Speaker. This is not merely a button push. The recording was created by an interaction between Listener and Speaker. Without the Listener, Speaker would not have spoken. The Speaker did not ask a bystander to record, handing him a sound recorder, saying, "Please hold this where it will pick up my words, and press Record when I say I'm ready." On the face of it, both have copyright *on the recording*, as co-authors, and I find that clear. As co-authors, in the U.S., each has the right to release, so either one could provide permission and we do not need to demand that other(s) be tracked down.

With a bystander selfie, the subject is clear, and the subject is (generally) the uploader, so we have no complicated issues to decide. The subject arranged the photo, provided the camera, and solicited a bystander to hold it, frame it, and press the button. (Those two are separable, i.e, a camera could be on a tripod and a bystander is asked to push the button on a signal, or self-timers have been used with a bystander holding the camera and framing. And we don't need to know!) A bystander might be able to claim co-authorship, under some (rare) conditions, but claiming sole authorship would be impossible. Therefore the subject has the right to release, and is also the only person who has the power to publish and release the image. In a bystander selfie, the subject is not passive, a mere object being photographed by a photographer acting on his own initiative. The intention of ownership is clear with a bystander selfie, and it is as a WMF lawyer concluded, in a WMF legal opinion, which has not been modified or even questioned there.

With the interview recording, which is what is described, the Listener is not passive, either, and created the occasion for the recording, provided the equipment, and operated it. It is clear, then, that absent evidence to the contrary, the Listener has, under U.S. law, the right to release. Under some circumstances, the Speaker might not even have the right to prevent release (i.e., notable subject, newsworthy conversation, and there are prominent cases). If there was an expectation of privacy, yes. Release could be blocked. However, the circumstances described indicate a clear permission by the Speaker. Authors routinely record interviews. May they release the interview? The very purpose of the recording is so that they may be accurate in their writing. I.e., by allowing the recording, the subject has consented to release, unless otherwise specified. (Which sometimes happens. "This is off the record, you may record this for your own use, but not release it.")

As Carl made clear, there may be multiple copyrights. However, with the case here, there is no other "work" as defined in copyright law, reduced to tangible form, than the recording. Speaker and Listener both participated in the creation of that, as the situation was described, and thus are co-authors of it. That the words might also be copyrightable (separately) does not change that. This is consistent with all case law I've read that is related. The salient case is Brod v. General Publishing Group, Inc. --Abd (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Speaker had nothing to do with the creation of the recording and has no copyright interest in it. There is no co-authorship here. Their only possible rights are if copyright law gives protection to a speech (a separate copyright), and if they are somehow classified as a performer in the circumstance (and have performer's rights). Also potentially privacy rights, but that does not sound likely. This has no common ground at all with a bystander taking a photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"Nothing to do" is hyperbole. (Bystander selfies were mentioned for contrast.) The speaker invented the words and arranged them and spoke them in a certain manner. This is not merely a "performance" of a work. It is a work.

However, we do not need to decide if Speaker is co-author, assuming that the one uploading here is Listener, i.e, the producer of the recording. I agree with the conclusion that, as the matter is described, Listener is at least a co-author, and thus may release the recording here (or may otherwise give permission) and we are not a copyright court, we do not need to decide the rest. Thanks, Carl. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In the U.S., works need to be fixed in a medium to be copyrightable. Extemporaneous speech is not copyrightable, so there is no "work" involved with the speech in the case described, unless they were delivering prepared remarks (where the speech was written down beforehand). There are some countries which protect all speeches, but it's not clear that a Q&A session or any normal conversation qualifies. That will depend on the law of the country in question. The Listener/Historical Company would be the sole copyright owner of the recording. If three people in the audience were recording, then there would be three separate recording copyrights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is actually moot here, unless the Speaker were releasing the recording. Yes, it could get complicated. If I tell the story of my life, I have prepared for it my whole life. But that is not copyrightable in itself, there is no doubt. My actual expression may involve much care and work, and be creative. If I intentionally create a recording by allowing Listener to make one, that fixes my creation in a physical form. I am reasonably confident that in the U.S., I could claim copyright, as co-author, at least.

However, again, Carl, your comments lead to the same conclusion for us: Listener may release. It is not our business to advise people on copyright law. (And we might suggest, if it matters, get a formal release from the other possible co-author or privacy-protected person! That is what professionals often do, I've been videotaped on the street for the local news, giving my opinion, and I was given a release to sign.) There may or may not be co-authorship rights. In order to consider this more deeply, much more would need to be known. We don't need to do that! Listener has the right to release the recording, absent unstated conditions or provisions of local law. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I rather disagree with some of what has been stated above and here is why, though I'm going to restrict this to US copyright law. Regarding the speaker, a "literary work" is defined as a work expressed in words, "regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as (...) phonorecords, film, tapes, in which they are embodied." A story is a literary work, once it has been fixed in a physical form, even if that form is an audio recording, and it's creator (the speaker, in this case) holds sole copyright in it. To "perform" a work is defined as specifically including reciting it.. it is possible to perform a literary work, and when the speaker tells the story they have done so, so they hold a sole copyright in the performance. As far as the listener (the person making the recording) they hold no copyright in the 'raw audio' of the recording.... effort such as setting up the situation and asking the question is not relevant, there must be a 'definable aspect of the work itself' that is directly attributable to a person for them to be the author. Any production work on the recording, however, grants the listener a 'production copyright' in their modifications, and they own the sole copyright in that work (or their company, probably, in the case stated). In the hypothetical case given, there are no questions of co-authorship, merely multiple copyrights.

I (strongly) think that merely being extemporaneous matters not at all. My words that I am typing here are extemporaneous, I'm just typing what I want to say without any later revision, and I don't think anyone would claim that I do not hold a copyright in them.

That being said, in the hypothetical case given, while the storyteller holds a copyright in the 'literary work' and in the 'performance', it would seem fairly obvious that by giving the performance 'on request' in such a situation they were licensing those copyrights to the listener, and that the listener would them be free to release the material 'in that form'. Something like a transcript, or a re-performance of the work by a different person, would require permission from the speaker. As mentioned, though, this is all about a hypothetical case; in a real situation there would probably be signed releases involved. Revent (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this copyrighted

I created this Latvia national ice hockey team badge fi:Tiedosto:Latvian jääkiekkomaajoukkueen tunnus.svg from here File:Coat of arms of Latvia.svg so it is the badge copyrighted? --Zunter (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Lähde (source?) is clear, Päiväys (author?) could be you, and Zscout370 + Nelg for the lion + griffin parts. The Republic of Latvia MAY discuss further legal details with you.

–Be..anyone (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lähde = Source, Päiväys = Date, Tekijä = Author --Zunter (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The coat of arms of Latvia as such is in the public domain, so you can freely use the symbology, but you may want to credit User:Zscout370 who did the SVG code. Otherwise your image would not be copyrightable. I suspect though that the emblem has been trademarked by the Latvian ice hockey association. De728631 (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So someone can upload the file to Commons? --Zunter (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Are Creative Commons icons in public domain?

Category:SVG Creative Commons icons have been licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses, however, Template:PD-ineligible, logos that only consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text are ineligible for copyright. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

See https://creativecommons.org/policies It has been discussed a lot; but no conclusion so far. FWIW, CC doesn't licensed their icons with a free license. J e e 11:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of these would be {{PD-textlogo}}. I changed the license for the most obvious cases. I think File:By.svg and File:CC-devnations white.svg are also PD-textlogo. Agreed? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is a legitimate free license on a file, it's a bad idea to ever remove it, in case icons are above the threshold of originality in some country somewhere. Using only PD-ineligible opens up a lot of questions for re-use, even if accurate in many/most countries. So add PD-ineligible if you like, but I would not remove any free license unless we know it's bogus (the uploader didn't own rights in the first place, etc.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I an understand that for borderline cases, but for File:Cc-by.svg, I don't see how there would be anything other than PD, even in UK. And I think we need to be more consistent with licenses and copyright. If we agree to host simple logos copied from random websites under PD-textlogo, I don't see how we could accept a claim of copyright for the same type of logos from our own contributors. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Does the same PD principle apply to svg-icons as png-icons? I would say that the motif might be simple, yes, however the code behind an svg might be above TOO and not PD... Josve05a (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see adding PD-ineligible to a license, but I would not remove a valid free license, even if it seems obvious. It provides additional protection. If PD-ineligible is the only avenue we can host it, then obviously that would be the only tag. But we should add all tags that apply. For example if a licensed work expires in its country of origin, it would often make sense to add the PD tag, but still keep the free license for use in countries where it may still be copyrighted. Additionally, some of our icons do claim that CC did license their icons, by being virtue of a site which was freely licensed "unless otherwise noted". The icons are trademarked, but that is separate from copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The two examples you give relate to different cases. PD in one country, but not worldwide, and borderline ToO, but I don't understand why you want to keep a copyright license for an obvious PD file. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg, I got your point. CC says "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license." And they are NOT saying contents at http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads are NOT freely licensed. So we can assume they are CC BY 4.0 licensed? :) J e e 15:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so fine to add a C-BY-4.0 license, but not a CC-BY-something else (2/3/SA, etc.). Yann (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

They were CC-BY-something else at the time of original upload here. As for ToO... that is inherently country-by-country and if there is anything we know about copyright, is that it's never obvious. There are always surprising results. Just because it's below the line in one country does not mean it won't be above the line elsewhere. I have no problem adding the PD-ineligible tag but I do have a problem removing valid CC tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

JFTR, the issue was discussed in a CFD recently. Holler, if you need help with reconstructing the (small) tracking category. IIRC only two SVGs were affected, everything else were big PNGs or (now deleted) dupes. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential copyvio issue

Could an admin please take a look at these two images, uploaded as own work, with no camera Exif detail, by Ragazzi99 (talk · contribs).

23:54, 28 March 2015 File:Aberdeen Harbour from Air.jpg
23:47, 28 March 2015 File:Duthie Park from the Air, Ferryhill, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.jpg

Neither image is consistent with other images by the same editor, which do Include camera Exif details. Due to their low quality and panoramic style I get the impression they are cropped images of another photo, possibly from a large wall display, rather than his/ her own images taken from the air. Hopefully I am wrong but if not then they are potentially a copyvio issue. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

NB: User also, apparently, edits as Ragazzi00 (talk · contribs). Richard Harvey (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ragazzi99 and Ragazzi00: Could you explain that? Yann (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

They do seem cropped but we'd have to find the original image on the net to demonstrate that. They look more like cropped pictures taken from a commercial airplane to me. The glass of airline windows often degrades picture quality. Maybe they were cell phone pictures, or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Just as a comment because I know Aberdeen, if you were coming in to land at Aberdeen Airport from the south, you could get views like in the last two photos. Thincat (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Below T.O.O. but with copyright mark?

I'm referring to Porsche's "Nobody's Perfect" poster, seen here. It doesn't seem to meet the threshold of originality under US or German copyright law, being made of only text and six straight lines, but it does have a copyright mark in the bottom left. Would this indicate an exception of some sort, or is the copyright mark meaningless due to ineligibility?

I'd say this is meaningless. I'm not aware of simple text like that being copyrighted in Germany. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the amount of text might actually be enough to be copyrightable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is creative to claim modesty while bragging about winning the first 8 places in a race. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

People will often claim copyright even if there might not be -- threshold of originality is generally not clear-cut, so to be safe they will claim it -- probably done as a matter of course on all their posters. It may well be valid in say the UK (they have a typographicsl arrangement copyright) -- the notice is not just for the U.S. markets. That all said, that much text could get a literary copyright. Short phrases are not copyrightable but once you get to a few sentences it might be. It won't get a graphical copyright in the U.S., but literary is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think only the small § at the bottom could get a literary copyright. If that is removed, we are safe. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The producer of the photos and recording I uploaded have already allowed me to use them

I have uploaded some photos and a recording(.ogg) and used them on Wikipedia. I asked the producer of these photos and recording, and he (as a Facebook page) sent them to me and allowed me to use them through Facebook Messenger, so I just put the name of his Facebook page as the source and author, but I have just been told that the file source is not properly indicated. "A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:SYP not yet in use.ogg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted." I am confused about what I should do now... I also think that there is no information on how to use files properly for users who have already granted the permission to use them.--Hkson2005 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

When you upload works that you did not create yourself it is essential that the licence can be verified by others, i.e. a simple statement of the source is sometimes not sufficient. So if you cannot provide a weblink to a page where these images and the recording are explicitely licensed under the Creative Commons version you selected, please ask the producer to confirm their release of the files by sending an email. An instruction can be found at Commons:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Les Mille et Une Nuits.gif

This poster looks suspicious and I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder of the work.

What do you think about? --Carnby (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

itwiki captions it as the cover of a French edition of the book... searching around, I found several places where it has been used by people as the cover image for ebook editions, but they all seem to postdate it's existence here (they were cropped down to remove the words, and then had another title overlaid). I think it's probably ok, unless a previous source can be found... it's at least 'plausible'.Revent (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this a picture or a drawing? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a painting to me, actually. Revent (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

==

This image has been extracted from a deleted image of an Iraqi banknote:

Is it OK for Commons? --Carnby (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Does not seem to be the case, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iraqi Dinar 1982 Ibn al-Haitham.jpg--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It probably should have been listed in that original DR, and deleted at the same time. Revent (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of calligraphic work (moved from Help Desk)

Hi. I recently uploaded File:Kakinoto no Hitomaro kahi by Ian Suttle.jpg. It's a photo I took of a stone in a municipal park in Kyoto, Japan. The stone is engraved with a calligraphic representation of a 7th-century poem. The calligraphy was done in the 16th or 17th century. It seems pretty unlikely that any aspect of this work is still under the copyright of anyone other than me the photographer.

A problem arises though with other photos I'd now like to upload. The same municipal park includes one stone engraving for each of the Hundred Poems. All of the poems themselves are at least around 800 years old. But some of the stone engravings are of calligraphy by calligraphers who are still alive. The poem by Sarumaru, for instance, is represented by the 1928-born calligrapher Kōhō Hibino.

Am I allowed upload my photos of these rocks and call it my own work? If the words themselves are in the public domain but the calligraphy was done recently, do the calligraphers have a copyright claim on the content of my photo? Does Kyoto City own the copyright on all the rocks, meaning my earlier-uploaded photo was also wrong?

And (assuming this is the right forum for the question!): if I can't put some or all of these photos on Commons as my own work, would it still count as fair use to use them on the English Wikipedia articles on the poets in question?

Ian Suttle (Satoru-kun) (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Post moved from Help Desk by ColonialGrid (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem lies not so much with the copyright status of the poem or calligraphy, but with the fact that Japan has Freedom of panorama restrictions concerning artwork on display outdoors. This means that photographs of objects such as artwork, monuments, and statues can generally not be uploaded to Commons until the copyright has expired - 50 years after the death of the creator (i.e. artist or sculptor). Even the image you mention above (File:Kakinoto no Hitomaro kahi by Ian Suttle.jpg) may fall foul of the Freedom of Panorama restrictions if it is a relatively recent installation. While the poem and calligraphy may have long passed into the public domain, this particular stone engraving may well still be under copyright. --DAJF (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No, if the text itself is in the public domain (I don't know), the monument is certainly also OK. Stone engraving doesn't give a new copyright, and the stone is not a work of art in itself. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This is a very good question, and I'll attempt to answer it (but may get it wrong, so I wouldn't rely on my answer too much, and would completely ignore it if it's contradicted by others who know more). If these stones are a sculpture, Japanese copyright law forbids them for being used for commercial purposes without release/consent of the creator (Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan), so if they are considered sculptures or artistic we can't host them. However, if they are considered to be plain text, it comes down to Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Japan, where Japanese courts hold that simple typeface is ineligible for protection (as the content is in the public domain, it is only the typeface we should be concerned with), but, if the typeface is artistic in nature it is protected. I would guess that any high quality calligraphy would probably count as artistic in nature, but am really going out on a limb here (I know pretty much nothing about calligraphy). So the question is, how original or artistic is the calligraphy displayed on the rocks? If it is a reasonably standard style that is not original you might be able to upload them here, but that is predicated on the rocks themselves not being sculptures (which I'm not sure about). Ultimately I reckon that they are probably protected as artistic sculptural works, and that even if the rocks themselves are not sculptures the calligraphy itself would be protected as artistic in nature, so do not believe they can be hosted on Commons. Regarding fair use at English Wikipedia, please consult en:WP:NFCC. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If they do get moved to the English Wikipedia, they should be there as PD-Text/Do not copy to Commons, not fair use, since they're clearly public domain in the US, as calligraphy is not copyrightable in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

1923 deadline

File:Map of Egypt showing area of operations 1914-1918.png Is the copyright for this OK? Keith-264 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Keith-264: The image is fine to use (it's PD), but the tagging looks wrong. Some checking shows that W. G. Macpherson was not actually the 'author' of the book, but merely the editor (see http://lccn.loc.gov/22019289 )... it was published under Crown Copyright by the HMSO, as an 'official history'. That being the case, it only had a 50 year term, and should probably be marked as {{PD-UKGov}}. Revent (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much, does the 1923 US criterion advance a year each year or stay at 1923 indefinitely? Keith-264 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Library of Congress is a new one for me, I tend to look for details in World Cat, which has [12] and gives Macpherson as the author. Keith-264 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The 1923 criterion will stay the same until 2019, at which point it will start moving again. It's the result of a 20-year non-retroactive extension effective in mid-1998, which froze most expirations for 20 years. So, works published in 1923 will become PD on Jan 1, 2019 (presuming no further law changes of course). But PD-UKGov is worldwide, so it would not matter what the U.S. term was. (Given the Crown Copyright, it would not have been restored by the URAA anyways.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Worldcat is nice for some purposes, but it's not great for 'authoritative' bibliographic data... it's a computer-merged dataset from different library catalogs, and has many duplicates. Also, there is a lot of variation in the quality of the cataloging, due to variations in standards in various places. If it's available, a place like the Library of Congress, or a 'national bibliography' for non-US countries that have them, will give more reliable data... WorldCat is best just to find out 'where to look'. Revent (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/6005329 is the correct entry for the 'series', the different volumes are not all merged correctly, they should all be together. Revent (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, you've all been most helpful. I've bookmarked the LC and British Library. Keith-264 (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Solar eclipse picture File:SE2015Mar20T.gif

File:SE2015Mar20T.gif

How can this be 'public domain' when it says on the picture itself that it's copyrighted?

(I came here after seeing it on the wikipedia article about the recent eclipse, which was on the main page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.31.46 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 26 March 2015‎

The history of this is, to use the technical term, weird. That image was uploaded in 2009, giving a NASA web page as source. The image, if it was ever on that NASA page, isn't on it now. This image is the only contribution here of the uploader, and it shows the March 20, 2015 eclipse. So, of course, it has been widely used, recently. Because of wide use, we should be careful, but the license information is clearly incorrect. As matters stand, there is no evidence that this is a NASA work. On the face, it's (c) 2000 by A.T. Sinclair. We should research this. A DR should be put on the file. I've never done a DR, and don't have time at the moment to figure it all out, so someone else can do that. Because of wide usage, immediate deletion would be disruptive cross-wiki. --Abd (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There are other similar images, such as File:SE1991Jan15A.gif. This file was uploaded to Wikipedia, where it is not impossible fair use could have been claimed. Then it was transferred by bot to Commons, where it may be deleted. There are thousands upon thousands of cases like this. Ordinarily the original uploader, who is using the file in a study, would be notified of a deletion on en.wiki. Not from commons. --Abd (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It is still on the NASA site, at the stated source. The second column has the link to the animated GIFs. http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2015Mar20T.GIF is the direct URL. The watermarking also has nasa.gov in there, but does have the copyright notice. Definitely a little odd. It's possible a source image was copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Found it, thanks. What it looks like is someone wrote a tool, and NASA used it. So we need to find the tool or information about it. It could be that images from the tool are usable here. Or not. --Abd (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, source information, first find: [13]. Besides having alternate animations (the one shown is actually much nicer), this page has

There are several authoritative sources of detailed eclipse information on the Web, including Fred Espenak's NASA Goddard site and Eclipses Online from the UK's HM Nautical Almanac Office. As a point of comparison, both sites link to animations by Andrew Sinclair, former head of HMNAO.

This is the HMNAO web site on eclipses: http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/eclipse/ ... "Crown copyright" on the site. Our gif is on astro.ukho.gov.uk. It credits "Dr. Andrew Sinclair", but the image has no copyright in it. The page, though, is "Crown copyright." That copyright would not be expired, and it might limit use, I'll leave this to experts. It's not impossible that permission could be obtained.

One more point before I put this down. What if the work is a joint work? I.e., the HMNAO has: "In conjunction with the US Naval Observatory, we have provided a canon of eclipses based on software used in the production of The Astronomical Almanac." If it is a joint work with a U.S. government agency, it might have joint ownership, and then either joint owner may be able to release the images, under U.S. law, as NASA has (without citing the Crown copyright, but citing the author of the software's name, and leaving that copyright notice in place.) --Abd (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah. The original source is here. Dr Andrew T Sinclair was the former head of the w:HM Nautical Almanac Office, which is basically the source of the images. They may be Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating. I will check back again in some days, and see what happens. It just seemed weird to see a (fairly prominent) wikipedia page with the picture quite boldly saying (C) 2000 A.T. Sinclair. I know that some pics can be 'copyright' but still usable, but I wouldn't like to see them becoming normal on Wikipedia, which is generally free-for-all.

P.S. There's over 100 similar images, see this search.

No, Wikipedia is not a free-for-all; it's hard to get an exact count, but most of the images used on Wikipedia are uploaded to Commons under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licenses and are still copyrighted, not free-for-all public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to do something about them -- they are not PD-USGov. The copyright statement is not present at the source; it was added at NASA it looks like. They are possibly a form of {{OGL}}, otherwise they are either unlicensed Crown Copyright or personal copyright and should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Will anything happen about this? I keep coming back to check for any updates; I know it can take a while - just wondering whether to keep checking back or what.

This section keeps being archived as it hasn't had a comment, and IP(s) keep restoring it as not resolved. IP: It would help if you added a question and signed the comment (place ~~~~ after your comment), that way people would see that you still have concerns and when you raised them (it would also reset the timer on the bot archiving this discussion). However, is this resolved? Is the image freely licenced or not, and should DRs be opened to resolve these questions or not? ColonialGrid (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't force Commons to deal with your concern, I'm sure there are lots of unresolved threads in the archives. Speaking of the archives, you didn't remove the section you moved back to this village pump from there, which is also why at first I didn't know where it was coming from. As a temporary "solution" I added the {{Disputed}} tag to the file's licensing section. FDMS 4 23:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I give up.

I wrote on here because a photo labelled as "Public Domain" says it's copyrighted on the photo, and is on an article that millions of people have been looking at.

I don't know much about your archiving and signatures and timers. As I wrote, I kept checking back to see if anything had been done about it.

It got 'archived', so I put it back because it's not resolved - as you can clearly see if you read the above. A couple of people agreed it was a problem, but nothing happened.

Nobody is 'forced to deal with my concern', sure. But I only wrote in the first place because it seems a bit crappy that you apparently have this highly-visible clearly-copyrighted picture - and, as I discovered later, hundreds of similar ones.

But I'm not going to waste more time if you can't be bothered to help, so I'm done with this.

Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.140 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. IP, yes, there is an obvious problem. However, the solution isn't completely obvious, as you seem to think it is. I'm not sure of the total, but there may be hundreds of these images. I did look into this, the results of my research are above. The files are being used, so deleting them will cause a certain level of disruption. I have argued that Commons should integrate with the WMF wikis, by hosting what would be hosted on Green Giant's m:Non-Free Wiki, not as a loss of the "free file" mission of Commons, but as an expansion that could be a very quick fix for hosts of problems like this one. There is no realistic legal risk to anyone using these files. There is merely a lack of technical certainty. Those files are all over the internet without problem. If they are tagged here as possibly not free, the WMF mission and policy on non-free files is satisfied.

However, that's tomorrow, not today. (Perhaps after all those who have said the equivalent of "over my dead body" are dead.) To fix this "problem," which is an obvious discrepancy, requires quite a lot of work, in fact. First of all, if they are to be kept, the files should all be uploaded from an original source, without that copyright notice. astro.ukho.gov.uk.

That will address the original complaint, but doing it for one file out of hundreds seems stupid. Further, there is an unclarity about the meaning of "crown copyright" in this case. Joint work with NASA, it says on the site. If we consider that "joint authorship," in the U.S., PD-NASA could apply. Which is the license used in the files. Can a file be free and have a copyright notice in it? Yes. That is perfectly possible. So the notice is obsolete. It irritates you, IP. It's wrong or the hosting is wrong. But the real issue, here, is where the files are hosted. They could be hosted on en.wikipedia, or, for the most part -- I haven't checked -- on the encyclopedia or other project where they are used, under a fair use rationale, in some cases (i.e., in mainspace article where the image is "necessary," which is generally a local judgment). In every case, they may be used, if the local community consensus agrees to it. The WMF will act if a copyright owner complains, that's the ultimate back-up.

User:Clindberg, who has a reputation as a copyright expert here -- and I generally agree -- opined that they should probably be deleted. However, I've never seen Carl consider the impact of actions. We have other files hosted in apparent violation of the precautionary principle and these decisions are based on other considerations, such as impact, with some sort, usually, of reasonable legal argument (short of certainty) supporting a "free" argument. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait_large.jpg.

Now, IP, this is the bottom line. This is a volunteer site. To upload the notice-free images for hundreds of files could be a lot of work. It also would be slightly risky, someone could fault the uploader for uploading crown copyright images. So, so far, nobody is exercised to do that, and, as well, nobody has been exercised enough to cause disruption by submitting all these files with a Deletion request. I did spend some hours researching this and reporting what I found, in spite of your claim of nobody caring.

If you think this should be done, do it. If it's not important, why did you come here with the complaint, and then insist on leaving this open? Just because "Someone is Wrong on the Internet?" As another pointed out, we have *many* files with problems. Maybe millions of them. Want to help? Then register an account and help. Don't want to help? Then ... go away. We will survive and so will you. Good luck, fixing all the errors on the planet. Seriously. Go after some important ones. --Abd (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/03