Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/10

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright

Tracking License templates on Commons

Lately I created Category:Primary license tags (flat list), which lists all the recognized license templates that do not depend on other license templates. A snapshot of this category can be found at Commons:List of primary license tags. The purpose of this category and page is to be able to track creation and deletion of license templates over time. New license templates which are not in Category:Primary license tags (flat list) can be detected by this query and the content of the current category listing and Commons:List of primary license tags can be compared to find changes. I would be interesting if anybody can find any other used license templates which are not listed. --Jarekt (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The name of the category is unsuitable as some of the template aren't licence templates but copyright expiration templates. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I did not come up with this name as all our license templates and copyright expiration templates are kept in hierarchical Category:License tags. --Jarekt (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Interior churches in Sweden

After Commons:Deletion requests/File:SanktaMariakyrkaUppsala int05.jpg I now wonder, should all files in Category:Baptismal fonts in Sweden (with subcategories) that is not PD-old be deleted? How do we deal on this? /Hangsna (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

{{FoP-Sweden}} covers building interiors and exteriors. However, when there is something inside the building which is not itself part of the building, then this is not covered by FOP as artworks only are covered by FOP when placed outdoors. I'd assume that photographs of these objects can't be on Commons unless they either are PD-old-70 (many are several centuries old) or PD-ineligible. COM:TOO#Sweden contains several examples of utilitarian objects, so it might not be too difficult to tell when objects like this are copyrightable and when they are not. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:PRUSALOGO.png

Just uploaded and claimed as own work, but that doesn't seem likely since it is the logo of American radio stations owned and operated by Punjabi American Media LLC. Don't believe the text is copyright protected, but not sure about the microphone image. Also, I'm wondering if the shape of the center of the "P" is supposed to represent something specific such as a region, etc. It sure looks like it was made that way on purpose and is not just some font. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Attribution to a Blog?

On the blog's "About" page the webmaster says all pics taken by me are Creative Commons Attribution but the webmaster does not give a name. Can the pic be attributed to the blog, i.e. "TheForExampleBlog(.)com" or "TheForExampleBlog" Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The blog owner is a hypocrite, they complained about a pic on WP and has better ones on their blog but doesn't want to share them because of the expense and time it took to take the pics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel Baranow (talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC+9) (UTC)
Quoting CC-BY 3.0:

If You Distribute, [...] the Work [...], You must, [...] provide, [...]: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties;

The interesting part is 'if supplied'. If the author refuses to disclose his name, then it is my interpretation that CC-BY 3.0 does not require you to attribute the author. I'm not sure if you have to attribute the other 'attribution parties' if the author refuses to disclose who they are. Not sure if other versions of CC licences differ in this aspect. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Anders Breivik Photo: Screen Grab fr/ Manifesto

Here's an example of this widely posted photo, at a Canadian news site.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/norway-mass-killer-to-get-new-psychiatric-assessment-1.1184398

Here's the manifesto, with photos at the end.

https://info.publicintelligence.net/AndersBehringBreivikManifesto.pdf

Given that he posted without restriction, is it necessary to secure his permission as author to upload it? Is it not public domain?

It can also be found here @ Wikispooks. Does that alter circumstances at all? In know it's a stretch, but...

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Anders_Breivik

Tapered (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not in the public domain. This has already been discussed numerous times. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

French patent

Any ideas if a French patent [1] (Application Date: November 9, 1939; Publication Date: March 19, 1947) can be PD now?--Avron (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Probably not. It is most probably 70 years pma, i.e. in the public domain 70 years after the death of the last author. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the same.--Avron (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

New NASA moon stuff on Flickr

NASA added ~8,400 photographs of Apollo missions on Flickr, some under all right reserved. (e.g. Apollo 8 here) See all Albums here. I can't think of anything that wouldn't make the photographs PD-NASA. Am I missing something or did the uploader make a bubu? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The immediately preceding photo in the sequence (i.e. AS08-14-2383) is already on Commons at File:NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise-b.jpg and File:NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg, but AS08-14-2384 is not currently on Commons. The NASA photo "AS08-14-2384" is definitely public domain. However the Flickr account that you reference, projectapolloarchive, is not a NASA project. The Flickr account belongs to The Project Apollo Archive, created/maintained by Kipp Teague. Not all of the photos in the archive are necessarily works of NASA or public domain (but I think most are). For this particular Flickr album, see "Full Hasselblad Magazines" at The Project Apollo Archive's Apollo Image Gallery. —RP88 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Do we need OTRS from Kipp Teague? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You might find http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/ useful, as they have what I understand is a complete set of the Apollo images from not just the Hasselblads, but from all cameras carried. The scans are not particularly high resolution, but it's essentially a visual index. Revent (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Soyuz TMA-18M crew portrait.jpg

The file from above is from Roscosmos/GCTC and was falsely promoted by NASA as it's own work. All was written here and here! What do you think? --Ras67 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you actually contact NASA directly by email (the person who wrote the press release is gina.n.anderson@nasa.gov) and ask them to double check the attribution. An error there does not seem unlikely. Revent (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Mesto logo.gif

Uploaded as "own work" and licensed as such, but not sure if this is the case. Image seems to come from the team's official website which states "© Copyright 2013-2015 Mesto Tampere ry" at the bottom of the page. Perhaps this is more acceptable as non-free, but the image is being used in an article on Finland Wikipedia and I am not sure if they allow non-free images there. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File:IgtisadchiBakuLogo.png

Image is claimed as own work, but there is no evidence of OTRS permission and the quality of the file makes it seem like it came from somewhere else and was not actually created by the uploader. It looks like the image ( or at least part of it) came from this website, which seems to be copyright protected. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File:MSU Men's Club Volleyball Icon.jpg

Logo of en:Michigan State University Men's Club Volleyball uploaded as "own work". Since this is the logo of the sports team/club of a major American university, it is likely the university is the copyright holder, isn't it? Logo can be found here on the team's official website and here on their official Twitter account. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Mascotte.jpg

File was uploaded as "own work" and licensed as "PD", but it looks like the official logo of some volleyball team. No OTRS permission is provided and the image is not being used in any articles. A Google image search only turns up other wikis and ebay pages, so I am not sure where the logo comes from. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

PRC government works

What is the status of works created by the government of the People's Republic of China? File:China Minister Of Culture - Letter For Michael Laucke.jpg is such a work, the transcript of a short speech by the head of a state-owned enterprise, the China Arts and Entertainment Group. While the filename's description of this person as the Minister of Culture is inaccurate, the person was clearly a government figure. Copyright law of China doesn't address government works specifically, but it says "For cinematographic and photographic works and works created by a company or organization the term is 50 years after first publication." Are government works included in "works created by a company or organization"? Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-PRC-exempt}} states that certain legal and administrative documents aren't copyrightable, but I'd guess that this document doesn't fall into any of those categories. One could also argue that {{PD-PRC-exempt}} only applies to works created by a government and that this wasn't created by the government but by an entity owned by the government. I'm not sure if that difference matters. I'd guess that this counts as a 'work created by a company or organisation' and that the document therefore gets that 50-year term in China and the corresponding 95-year term for works for hire in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-old-100 and US copyrights

Please see Commons:Village_pump#Template:PD-old-100_and_US_copyrights. --Jarekt (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Pre-1989 US question

As a hypothetical, a friend took a photograph of someone and gave it and the negative to the subject in the 1960s, then died with no heirs. The subject since died and had one heir. It is my understanding that the subject's heir cannot license the photograph, which remains in a copyright limbo until 70 years after the death of the photographer. Subject's heir claims that because the photograph and negative were given in the 1960s and without a copyright notice, this is incorrect. I would appreciate some guidance. Potential additional factor: the photograph was at some point published in a local newspaper, however the date and other specifics are not available. Thank you for any advice. For the actual situation, which may differ in certain specific details from the above hypothetical, OTRS agents may refer to ticket:2015062310004913, which I would also appreciate private advice on if that advice differs. Storkk (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

See w:Pushman v. New York Graphic Society, Inc. The subject of the photograph became the copyright holder when the photographer gave him the photograph. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan4: Thank you! So essentially prior to 1 January 1978, if "the only tangible embodiment of the work" was transferred in the US, then copyright was also transferred (that is how I read the article, but just want to triple-check)? Storkk (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which went into effect on January 1, 1978 and requires most copyright transfers to be in writing) the decision in Pushman v. New York Graphic Society, Inc. (1942) established the doctrine that authors or artists are generally presumed to transfer common law copyright (technically common law literary property rights, not federal copyright) when they sell their manuscript or work of art, unless those rights are specifically reserved. This case was overturned by New York legislature in 1966 and later for the entire country by the 1976 Copyright Act. Some additional notes are at Commons:Transfer of copyright. —RP88 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Stefan4 and RP88! Storkk (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Glad to be of assistance. As a matter of completeness with regard to your note about possible publication: in the U.S., prior to the federal preemption of copyright by the 1976 Copyright Act, an unpublished work was protected by state statutory or common law until it was published, after which the only protection available was under the federal copyright statute. The decision in Pushman v. New York Graphic Society, Inc. applies to common law, not federal copyright, so the matter gets much more muddled if the newspaper publication occurred with the permission of the copyright owner before any transfer via sale of the only tangible embodiment occurred. —RP88 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
For all practical purposes this photo is in public domain because the copyright, while it still formally exists, is unenforceable. Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

en:File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project (6973621).jpg

and en:File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project.jpg

Hi, I was ready to copy these here, but why would this be in the public domain? It is not 2D art, and AFAIK, Google claims a copyright over its pictures. It seems that some people on enwp think it is OK: en:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project (6973621).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

But there are conflicting issues concerning the Brooklyn Museum's copyright statements. Ww2censor (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, so I suppose, the result is "we don't care about Google claims", since the Brooklyn Museum says it is OK? Yann (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is a good interpretation. Do we even know for sure that the images were authored by Google and not by the museum? The identical images are on the museums website. Ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No. But the photo appears to be by the Brooklyn Museum. I don't think Google has any claim. The Brooklyn Museum website says "No known copyright restrictions", similar to their Flickr Commons stuff. Which would appear to mean they are releasing the work to the public domain. Except, not sure the hi-res version is available on the Brooklyn Museum website, and then the question is if there is some kind of release on the Google site from the Brooklyn Museum. Is the photo actually on Flickr Commons anywhere? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but those links about this "Social Change" do not clarify the licencing for me especially when you consider the facts I posted on the enwiki discussion. On the one hand the museum provides a Creative Commons licence {{Cc-by-3.0}} at https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/copyright but they contradict that licence in the statement on this webpage which has a commercial restriction that is effectively a {{Cc-by-nc-3.0}} licence. This needs clarification as the two conflict so which licencing do you want to accept? I decided to see if their copyright page was on the Wayback Machine and I see that between 2004 and 2007 their Creative Commons licence was a cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 but there is no record of any changes to the page between 2007 and 16 June 2015 when the revised licence cc-by-3.0 appears. Obviously they updated from 2.0 to 3.0 a few months ago but it could be that the NC and ND were removed by mistake or perhaps their policy changed. We need to determine exactly which because we cannot infer anything from the current pages linked here. Obviously the freer licence is the one we desire but the clear statement barring commercial restricts us. Ww2censor (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Good news; these two images are good. The images are freely licenced by the Brooklyn Museum. I had a good copyright conversation with Deborah Wythe, the Vice Director of Digital Engagement & Technology at the Brooklyn Museum, who told me that only last week some legal eagles had pointed out places on their website where their licencing had not been updated to reflect their current policy, which is free licencing. One of the pages is the one that states commercial use is not allowed per this webpage which she said is to be updated but had not yet been done. Most of the images on the Brooklyn Museum website are their own and they will attribute images that are not theirs. Ww2censor (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Public domain?

I was in the process of uploading an image file from flickr, and noticed that although the user (here) had marked all his files as public domain, it is not the same as CCO waiver. The licence, Public Domain Mark 1.0, is not listed as an option. What exactly is the status of these files, and what do I select as the licence? Hzh (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Flickr-public domain mark}} recommends that {{PD-Author|Author's name}} be used for photos uploaded to Flickr by their creator who released them into the public domain but who didn't use Flickr's CC0 option. —RP88 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. {{Flickr-public domain mark}} appears to suggest that I cannot upload the file unless I am the creator of the file, is that correct? Or does it mean that if the file has been marked as public domain in Flickr, then I can upload it? I assume it's the latter, but just a bit confused why if it is already marked as public domain in Flickr, it would still question if it is in the public domain or not. Hzh (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hzh, in this case the author's name should be the name of the Flickr user. Flickr has two license options that are displayed as "Public domain", but link to different descriptions. They have "Public Domain Dedication" which links to creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. This is the license a Flickr user should use for their own works which they wish to release as public domain. These images should use {{Cc-zero}} on Commons. Flickr also has "Public Domain Mark" which links to creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/. This allows a Flickr user to indicate that an image (including one that may not be their own) is in the public domain without saying why it is in the public domain. Commons wants uploaders to actually say why an image in the public domain, not just that it is. This is why {{Flickr-public domain mark}} insists that it be replaced with a more specific public domain copyright tag. It offers a couple of suggestions based on common situations if you click the grey box expand its notes. For example, a Flickr user might use "Public Domain Mark" for a scan of a lithograph from a book published in the U.S. before 1923 in which case the Flickr image could be uploaded to Commons with the {{PD-1923}} copyright tag. I'm not sure why the Flickr user in this particular case has used "Public Domain Mark" instead of "Public Domain Dedication" for what are pretty clearly their own photos (maybe Flickr doesn't explain the difference well to their users?), but if I were uploading one of these Flickr photos to Commons I would use {{PD-author|[https://www.flickr.com/people/surveying/ Jnzl]}} as the license on Commons. —RP88 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. It does get confusing at times. Hzh (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Ladies' home journal from 1947 / 1948

As part of my book plates project I have uploaded several hundred of images from this journal, they seem of value to illustrate domestic life and values from the U.S. I have since raised a deletion request against what is probably going to turn out to be all my uploads, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Ladies' home journal (1889) (14580245160).jpg as I doubt the "no copyright known" license on Flickr.

I would really appreciate extra eyes on the DR and the context of the images. The detailed catalogues from the IA are here (v.65) and here (v.64). These seem to be the only volumes released on Flickr (later volumes have been scanned, these two seem the earliest digitized). I may be overlooking some obvious point of U.S. copyright law which could make these copyright free, but I would have thought they would not be public domain until 2017/2018 based on the 70 year rule. It seems a shame to delete the lot if there might be a wrinkle here that IA are using, so please do add any thoughts or counter viewpoints on the DR. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What 70 year rule? There is no 70 year rule in the US applicable here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to 70 years post mortem auctoris per Copyright rules by territory, though it's already been pointed out that a toss up between 95 years post-publication or public domain is more likely for these cases. Some useful sources have been added to the DR and a system of triage for the 1,080 relevant cropped images is being considered pending some file renames in progress. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Internet Archive doesn't seem to actually 'do' copyright clearances, but instead relies on takedown notices, so there is a lot of questionable material there. The person who scanned and uploaded those also uploaded the July 2002 issue, which seems like a pretty obvious copyright problem, so I don't think we can assume that the IA exercised any kind of 'due diligence' regarding these. Revent (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Not more likely for these cases; 70 years pma is rarely relevant in the US, as it's only relevant for works not published until 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I'm uploading material from Flickr Commons, not the Internet Archive. These particular images are crops from the versions that the IA has on their site, which they have then decided to release on to Flickr Commons as NCK. There is a lot of material on the IA archive that is clearly marked with more restrictive copyright licenses than Wikimedia Commons will accept, as well as media with unknown copyright status. There are several volumes of the Ladies' Home Journal scanned and donated to IA, only the earliest first two are on Flickr Commons. --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Fae: Yeah, what you are doing (mirroring the Flickr feed) was clear. My point was that I don't think the Internet Archive really does any kind of actual clearance, even on the ones they put on Flickr. There's probably not any kind of 'subtle point' they are relying on, I think saying 'no known restrictions' here is rather of an expression of "nobody has complained, and so we are ignorant of any problem", not saying "we checked, and couldn't find any issues." Revent (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Military-National Guard license valid?

(also affected; Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air National Guard) Today on en.wikipedia, there is an image on the main page in the "In the news" section. The image is located here. The image was ported from Commons to en.wikipedia temporarily. The image is tagged with {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}}. That template doesn't exist on en.wikipedia, but does here.

The National Guard have a dual status; they are normally under the control of the respective states from which they come. In times of emergency, they can be federalized, in which case control transfers from the state to the federal government. This potentially affects an image taken by a member of the National Guard in the pursuit of their duty.

Thus: If an image is taken by a member of the National Guard when that unit has not been federalized, but is acting under orders of their state authority, the image would be the property of the state, not the federal government, no? In this particular case, the source of the image is here. The SC National Guard has tagged this image as "© All rights reserved". They certainly seem to think they have copyright on their images. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a great question. I have dealt with quite a few "national guard" photographs, however as these were given DoD releases as PD by the photographers, they are on safer grounds. I have never seen a Federal statement that makes all National Guard data PD under Federal law such that one would disregard claims of restrictive copyright. If someone can point to such a thing, problem solved. Otherwise this question should lead to a deletion request for the template (probably needing 30 days rather than 7, it will have quite a large impact) and we can have a discussion about it on the record, along with how to move verifiable PD material to a stronger license... --Fæ (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Tricky. I'd argue that images that have been assigned a VIRIN ID by the Department of Defense for public release are presumptively valid {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}}. However the number of images in Category:Files created by the United States National Guard with known IDs is small (only 171). I'd also argue that any photos taken during WW I or WW II are valid {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}} (I am not sure how many of these there are on Commons). There are also a bunch that are probably mistagged as Guard photos simply because they came from a Guard website (e.g. File:A-10A_Idaho_ANG_over_Sawtooth_Range_2009.jpg). —RP88 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, the file on en.WP was ported from File:Columbia,_South_Carolina,_October_5,_2015,_levee_breach.jpg, and the source is here on Flickr and it has a DoD VIRIN, i.e. 151005-Z-XH297-005. —RP88 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I did a little research, and under Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations, members of the National Guard are paid from federal funds when they are on active duty (typically due to federal emergency activation or deployment), full-time duty, or even inactive-duty training, despite the case that for the latter two they are under state command. It is only when they are activated for state active duty that they are paid from state funds (and are, of course, under state command). So for the vast majority of their service time members of the National Guard are not state employees. —RP88 (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That's interesting. Though, in their dual status where they get paid from might not have an effect on copyright, as they are not under federal command unless federalized. I don't know. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The en:National Guard Bureau is part of the federal government, so yes it can be a valid license. There are per-state offices as well, which should not fall under that license, unless the author was on loan from another branch of the military (which does happen often). I see a very similar image here, which is by "Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jorge Intriago", which seems to indicate that Jorge Intriago is a member of the USAF and thus the image should be PD-USGov. If an image is released on the DoD site, I think that is enough, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not really concerned with this particular image, for which I think there's a fair (but not absolute) certainty it is public domain. Rather, I'm concerned about our ability to say anything national guard = free. That seems highly suspect. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Fellowship of Isis.jpg

Just uploaded, but I can find copies.[4] Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That should be {{PD-text}}, shouldn’t it? The hieroglyphs appear to be conventionally drawn and arranged, without any creative expression; moreover I‘m pretty sure substantially identical forms can be found in widely available fonts.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes probably. In fact, I've got reason to believe that the uploader has rights to it, but as they haven't identified themselves I won't go down that road. Doug Weller (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Eadh

This contributor was warned here on WC that his uploads where out of scope and just placed here for advertising purposes. He was warned on his WC talk page that he was facing a block. He now has had an indefinite block put on him on WP (Eadh just happen to be the initials of EAST AFRICAN DATA HANDLERS LTD and his edits confirm that he has some sort of very strong COI). Looking at the images on User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2015_August_27_06:00I don't think we can accept the license given on these images either. What do we do with them ? I think speedy. --Aspro (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:GeorgeNjoroge.png is just a crop from his twitter so yea, speedy sounds correct. /Hangsna (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Publicity photo of Mort Sahl

Can someone familiar with PD publicity photos please review a suggested upload posted on my subpage? Thanks in advance. --Light show (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Open Government Licence

I would appreciate more eyes at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iain Duncan Smith May 2015.jpg. We seem to have a large number of UK Government official photos that have been tagged with an Open Government Licence but the "source" points to a page that does not contain the full-size image we are hosting. The whereabouts of these full-size images is sometimes hard to locate, but sometimes it is a Flickr album. In this particular DR, there is a thumbnail of IDS at https://www.gov.uk/government/people/iain-duncan-smith but no large image. The Flickr page is licensed CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 which is incompatible with Commons.

Similarly we have File:Grant Shapps Official.jpg which is sourced to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http://www.communities.gov.uk/profiles/corporate/grantshapps. That in turn claims permission from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/help/conditions/ which makes mention of the OGL as a general possible licence for material on the website. However, the OGL itself explicitly excludes "personal data". The UK Government licensing framework says

"The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) defines UK law on the processing of data on identifiable living people and protects personal data. Photographs of identifiable individuals could be considered to be personal data under DPA. The UKGLF does not authorise the re-use of any personal data."

The MOD Copyright Licensing Information agrees with this interpretation saying:

"The Open Government Licence is not suited for use with “Personal Data”. The presence of Personal Data means that at least one individual is recognisable within an image. Often this means their face is clearly visible, however it can also refer to distinguishing marks being clear, or simply the context within which they are working, that makes them recognisable."

It seems we have two problems. First that many of these images have "source" that doesn't actually point to where the real JPG came from. We need accurate source data. Is the licence transferable from a thumbnail on a GOV.UK website onto a full-size Flickr image that appears to have a non-Commons-compatible licence? I think not. Secondly, the OGL appears to exclude itself from being used for photos of people. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Omar Sharif & Barbra Streisand 1973 press photo

Can someone familiar with publicity or press photos please review a suggested upload posted on my subpage? --Light show (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sculptures in Statengalerij: Freedom of Panorama or not?

Hi,

I uploaded a number of pictures of sculptures in the nl:Statenpassage, which is a space open for the general public, part of the Dutch Lower House (Tweede Kamer). Most of those are of sculptors that are long dead, but a few are of sculptors that are less than 70 years dead: File:TK statenpassage Alberdingk Thijm 1.JPG, File:TK statenpassage Alberdingk Thijm.JPG, File:TK statenpassage Hol.JPG, File:TK statenpassage Kappeyne 1.JPG and File:TK statenpassage Kappeyne 2.JPG. I strongly suspect that such a public space (part of the publicly accessible area of the National Parliament, although behind security measures) would be a public area in the sense of the Freedom of Panorama exception, the same way that train stations are. But it would be nice if someone could confirm :) Thanks! Effeietsanders (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Birds from flickr

Are File:Birds of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks ((197-?)) (20385349735).jpg and the other once really free? Just because someone at flicker flickr wrote "Taken circa 1825" dont makes them free. It even says "Published [197-?]". Shouldnt that be checked before? And the bot makes it flagged as being correct right away. Ping Fæ. /Hangsna (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

For the copyright background you can check the catalog page. If there are restrictions on the copyright they should be mentioned there. Dick (Richard) Follett seems to have been a ranger at Yellowstone at the time, with credited photographs being used either directly from the NPS archives or photographers that were NPS employees, such as Robert Gildart. For these reasons I believe that {{PD-USGov-NPS}} can be added as a more detailed license.
If you still have doubts, feel free to raise a DR and we might get others to take a look. In the meantime I have created Category:Birds of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and fixed the date, which is a problem with the Flickrstream in general.
P.S. Ironically "Flicker" is the bird in the photo, while "Flickr" is what you probably meant.   --Fæ (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ruth Roman press photo

Request to have someone review another press photo before upload. --Light show (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Retroactive copyright term extension for photographs proposed in Argentina

In Argentina, a retroactive copyright term extension for photographs has been proposed. Since Commons requires that non-US works be free in their country of origin in addition to being free in the US, it seems that this would impact the ability for certain photos to be included on Commons. --Gazebo (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of images of paintings licensed by the artist

File:Nahem Shoa next to his Giant Portrait of Ben, Hartlepool Art Gallery.jpg is one of several photos of paintings by artist Nahem Shoa for which the artist sent OTRS declarations granting license for their use (including on Commons and Wikipedia). The files have been flagged with the OTRS ticket template reflecting that Shoa's declarations were received and evaluated. OTRS staff then asked for declarations from Arttalk1984, who took the photos, clarifying that they also licensed the photos (even though Arttalk1984 was the uploader); these latter emails have been received but apparently not yet reviewed.

Mhhossein nominated the file for deletion on the basis that it is "Clearly a derivative and not a 'de minimis' case for someone else's work." They have ignored my pointing out that the artist who created the painting in the photo licensed it as proved by the OTRS template, and are instead repeating their accusation on Wikipedia. Is there something I can do here, or can someone Mhhossein might listen to possibly explain to them that the nomination was not appropriate for the reason given? —GrammarFascist (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Situation has been resolved by administrator intervention. —GrammarFascist (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Help determine the copyright status of an image

I need help determining if a photo of Amy Elizabeth Thorpe on zh.wikipedia (zh:File:Wedding_portrait_of_Amy_Elizabeth_Thorpe_1930s.jpg) where it is currently tagged as fair use is actually PD. The source of the photo listed is World War II Database. Any input is much appreciated. --Wcam (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A wedding photograph is probably rarely published. File:Amy Elizabeth Thorpe FBI wanter poster.jpg reveals that the picture was distributed on a poster by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, per w:Pushman v. New York Graphic Society, Inc., Amy Elizabeth Thorpe might have become the copyright holder shortly after the photo was taken (if USA is the source country), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation probably didn't ask her for permission if the picture could be used on the wanted poster, so that probably didn't constitute publication. Unless it was published somewhere with permission from the copyright holder, the copyright expires in the United States 120 years after the photo was taken. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
That "wanted" poster looks more like a modern recreation by a blog. Modern Times computer font probably? In reading a little bit, I don't think she was ever arrested -- a "wanted" poster would indicate that charges were filed, and that sort of thing. It may well have been published a while ago, but probably not at the time it was taken (there was a Time article on her in 1963 it looks like and probably others then and later). So at the moment, we have zero information on its publication history, so there's really nothing we can base a PD claim on. The WWII database page does not give a source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-free software screenshots bellow the Threshold of originality

Concerning the newer tendency of software companies to simplify its interfaces, I found some non-free software screenshots, namely, the Microsoft Edge (the successor of Internet Explorer in Windows 10): this and this file (where I opened this DR).

For that reason, I've created this template mainly for US non-free software (but also for other countries) screenshots, but bellow the TOO (I'll create more license tags for other juridsdictions accordin how we discus this), and start this discussion with some questions:

  • Are the MS Edge (and other Windows 10) interface actually bellow the TOO, and therefore allowed in Commons?
  • Is my new License tag a good idea to tag US-only non-free software in this way? Sugegstions?

This discussion is aimed mainly for US non-free software screenshots, but also for non-US ones, like some Agar.io (non-free UK game) ones like this, this or this (them and more related, nominated for deletion). Then, I also invite to comment tn these DRs and explain if these screenshots of Agar.io are actually bellow the TOO in the UK (and therefore allowed in Commons). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Some computer software is below the threshold of originality. The icons in Microsoft Edge are maybe not. If the icons are not below the threshold, then it is not permissible to upload pictures of the icons for the purpose of displaying what Microsoft Edge looks like as the icons then are intentionally included (and thus not de minimis). --Stefan4 (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
For the recod, this DR opened by Me was closed by Yann as Kept, where the icons of MS Edge are effectively not de minimis because are part of the browser interface, therefore, the main purpose of the screenshot... but these icons are just lines and circles, IMHO bellow the TOO. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The entire purpose of that picture is to display the interface, so the interface is not de minimis. The inclusion of Wikipedia data is not necessary for displaying the interface and is therefore maybe de minimis, although it may be too prominently presented for de minimis to apply. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I mean below the threshold of originality. Yann (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you (Yann and Stefan4 I guess) agree that the icons of MS Edge are bellow the TOO in the US, is more concensus needed to start using that template (for now only for US cases)? If necessary, I'll open a thread in the VPP to formaly propose the template. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

New License template {{Resolution restricted-by-sa}}

FYI, as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files using User:Saffron Blaze/license and similar licenses decision I moved User:Saffron Blaze/license to template namespace, called it {{Resolution restricted-by-sa}} and made it into an official license template. --Jarekt (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I believe the DR discussion linked has no firm evidence that this would be a valid or enforceable copyright license. This appears to be an attempt to force Commons to accept a form of the "no derivatives" license restriction, which is outside of Project scope, per Commons:Project_scope#Required_licensing_terms.
As this template would change our understanding and definition of scope, I do not believe that a DR is the appropriate venue to consider we have a community consensus. This should be a proposal to change project scope before making the template "live". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of this template and sure hope is not going to find many followers, but I do not see "no derivatives" license restriction in there. The only substantial difference from CC-BY-SA license is that license only covers the uploaded file and whatever you can derive from it, but does not cover higher-resolution versions of the same image you can find elsewhere. And in that is not much different than Template:BArch-License that also worked on the same assumption. --Jarekt (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
IMO this template is a legitimate answer to the mess created by CC's sudden and unexpected paradigm shift late in 2013[5]. This template just expresses what every creator of digital works implicitely expects. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It says "Restriction – Licensee may not use higher resolution versions of this work." What does "higher resolution versions" mean? On a computer screen, the resolution is typically measured in pixels, but how do you determine if you are using a "higher resolution version" if you have a printed edition of the work? This restriction looks like a nightmare: postcard publishers won't know what's allowed and what's not allowed. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Stefan4, that is the major problem with this license: it is quite imprecise and unclear. It is equivalent to the summaries of CC licenses, but with the CC licenses there is an actual license behind it where everything is spelled out in great detail. In this case the "higher resolution version" means that uploded images are downsized versions of the original images. You might be able to find the originals somewhere on the web (flickr, etc.) but they are not covered by this license. At the same time any image derived from the uploaded version is covered by the license, even images where we increase dimensions of the image. --Jarekt (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It depends on what 'resolution' means. If we 'increase the dimensions', we are maybe using a higher 'resolution', even if we are not adding more information about the image from other web sources. There's also the problem that we do not know what 'resolution' means when it comes to printed copies of the licensed material. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The 'words' mean very little here. If someone could find an image that was a larger resolution, we can have a DR and debunk this pseudo-copyright-license. Sorry for those that like it, I understand why you might, but it has no legal grounds of enforceability, nor are courtesy deletions to comply with it in line with project scope. Either we delete all images where the author has this concern to protect their understanding of their artistic rights, or we replace them with a legally meaningful license. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Are files under unclear licences freely licensed? If people need to ask for legal assistance in order to interpret a licence, then this acts as a de facto restriction: it is too much trouble to figure out of the file can be used or not, so reusers do not dare using the material. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
If the licenses are unclear to us (and we have probably debated copyright more often than 99% of contributors), then COM:PRP should ensure that we delete images with such licenses, because we (and hence the wider Community) is unlikely to ever make a legally cogent determination that the licence falls within COM:L. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The wording of this license surely could be improved/clarified.
For those who don't remember the long discussion in late 2013, it's about this: if a creator wants to offer, for example, a 5 MPix version of an image under a CC license, but wants to retain his full copyright for the 10+ MPix version of the same photo. Before 2013, CC stated in their FAQs, that's fine with us. In late 2013 they suddenly and completely changed their mind and stated that the CC licenses refer to a "work", not to a specific resolution of a digital work, and that thereby a CC license might also be valid for resolutions of the work, which the creator never released under a free license. Their only disclaimer was that this question depends on the local jurisdiction. What a mess and what a betrayal of the creators! --Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo1 web.png

Uploaded as "own work", but no evidence is provided that the uploader and copyright holder are one and the same. Logo is being used at prizeo.com and it seems that holds the copyright of their logo per No. 17 Trade Marks. Since Prizeo is based out of Los Angeles, this may be too simple to be copyright protected and qualify as {{PD-textlogo}}, etc.; Otherwise, I think it should have "OTRS permission" from the company. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You should not confuse trademarks with copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction Ruslik. That was a silly error on my part. Would No. 5 Ownership of Content show that Prizeo owns the copyright of its logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:CB125F.jpg

This file is incorrectly labelled as a Honda CB125F a machine which only went on sale in 2015. The date information is that the image was taken in March 2014. It appears to be a Honda CB250F which is a bike which has many differences to the 125 quite apart from the engine capacity. It also seems to be copied directly from here. Eagleash (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion and nominated the only other remaining file uploaded by the same user for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Sandvik-fish-side alt.jpg

Hi, I imported this image last June from mynewsdesk.com, where it had a free license. The file is not available there now, and @Christian Ferrer: tagged the file with "no source". As far as I am concerned, this file is OK. Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

How trustworthy is mynewsdesk.com? That image just looks like a photoshopped version of the original Getty Images version. Эlcobbola talk 16:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, right. That fixed the issue. File deleted. Yann (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Gdoc advanced sharing.png and other google drive screenshots?

AFAIK the Google Drive interface is not open source software. Are screenshots of it, like File:Gdoc advanced sharing.png, copyrighted? Legoktm (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, tagged accordingly! Legoktm (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

copyright

Hello,

I just uploaded this picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Molukse_wijk.jpg

I got it from a website, but the owners of the website said it's oke to use the picture, but the picture is not made by them. It was made by a girl who made the photo for a document that she gave to the website to publish.

I cannot make contact with that girl, but the website who published her document said it's oke to use the picture.

I really want to know if wiki allows me to use this picture, because I don't want to make any mistakes...

please help me,

thnx

Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddy alifuru (talk • contribs) 11:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eddy alifuru: The creator of the picture owns the copyright in it. A grant of a license that is allowable needs to be directly from the owner of the copyright, not some kind of second or third hand permission. Without a license statement directly from the copyright owner (which, since it was previously published on the net, should be via COM:OTRS), it's not allowable. The permission from the creator to publish on that website doesn't imply the kind of 'global' permission for reuse that Commons requires, unless she explicitly and verifiably put in under CC-BY-SA or a similar license. Revent (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Agar.io (UK game) screenshots DRs and the Threshold of originality

Related with this other thread (above, namely, non-free software from the US), I start (again) this discussion about the Threshold of originality and the non-free software screenshots, focusing the Agar.io case, a non-free UK game consisting just in simple shapes and text...

There are some screenshots and artwork, all of them nominated for deletion (namely this, this, this, this), argumenting that them are derivated works of a non-free game, and therefore, copyvio. But I opposed these DR due the Threshold of originality. Then, almost all of these files were deleted by Ellin Beltz with the reasoning Image is from Copyrighted Game, and thus is copyright violation, supporting the arguments of Diego Grez, but without mentioning (and even considering) the Theshold of originality in the UK, and even, without considerin that one (or some of them) are unofficial artwork.

Yes, the game itself is non-free and then protected by the Copyright and Patents Act, but these screenshots consist just in ball and text generated by algorithms, then,

  • Are these screenshots of Agar.io actually protected by the CDPA (specifically, the Threshold of originality)? (I have these doubts, the reason for this thread),
  • and even, Are these screenshots protected by the US Copyright Law? (clearly not, IMHO)
For the record, I nominated for deletion a MS Edge screenshot, and resolved by Yann as Kept, argumenting de minimis, but the elements in the Edge interface are not de minimis, but at least bellow the TOO in the US, IMHO.

Therefore, we need a proper discussion about the (US and non-US) non-free software and the Threshold of originality. For that reason, and as I mentioned in the above thread, I'm finding concensus to use this template (that can be adapted to UK and other non-US cases). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter, whether the software is free or not. --Ralf Roleček 17:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the UK essentially doesn't use the threshold of originality. w:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg was deemed to be too complex by a British court. As soon as someone starts making minor modifications (such as adding circles), we will have to assume that it is copyrighable in the United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
But, the elements of the screenshots are not strictly work of creativity like a draw or a painting (the software itself could be): The direct result of the execution of software, with algorithms that make balls-like forms that grown and grown, text in common font, and horizontal and vertical dashes. This seems too complicated to the UK, I admit. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Open source clone licensed under the MIT license

Also, I found this open source Agar.io clone found in Github, licensed under the MIT License, where the mechanic and gameplay is exactly the same (and look and feel very similar), but the algorithm may be different, and source code is also different. Then,

  • Are the gameplay (aka. the mechanics) protected by the Copyright Laws? As I know, Not.

If the game clones (with the same mechanic but different algorithms and source code) are actually not protected by the CDPA and the US Cupyright Law, we can use the screenshots of that clone, is not a good idea? --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  • These are basically derivative works of copyrighted stuff, so it wouldn't be a good idea, either, to upload screenshots of these as replacements. (Even if it were possible, they couldn't be usable as "agar.io"'s) --Diego Grez return fire 18:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, please don't mix pears with apples. The software itself (binaries and source code), the Gameplay (aka. the mechanics), its interface (and the direct result of running code) and the Artwork (official and unofficial) are different and separated elements, governed by the Copyright Laws in different ways. The main question here is what the CDPA protects and what not, in this case, is better that an UK Laws expert answer that. Then,
  • Is the agar.io-clone itself a derivated work of Agar.io? No, is not a fork, is a clone with different code. Remember the prase "Protecting (or patenting) the Form but Not the Function?"
  • Is the agar.io-clone's interface is a derivated work? Maybe, is almost identical to the official one, but...
  • Is the agar.io-clone's interface protected under the CPDA and the US Copyright Law?
  • And, Is an unofficial artwork (with text and simple shapes) a derivated work of the main subject? Is a Copyvio, considering its simplicity?
Please answers these questions and you will get a clearer answer.
An important precedent was the Hercules emulator, licensed under a Free license (FSF approved but not DFSG compatible), but DR resolved as Kept due its extreme simplicity, and also showing Free software running (Linux kernel and Bash); and a more recent case, the MS Edge, kept due the simplicity of the icons in its interface (not protected in the US). So, keep in mind that. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you please cry a little less? --Ralf Roleček 21:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
+1 --Diego Grez return fire 00:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can (and also I can take your comment as a personal attack)... but none of you're answered the main question of this thread, the scope of the protection of the CDPA in each aspect of the screenshots (the only who given a near-correct answer was Stefan4) (and for some reason I mentioned the Hercules emulator and the Microsoft Edge cases). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Diego Grez, applying your logic in the most basic,
  • is SuperTux a derivate work of Super Mario Bros.? Obviously not, just a Clone, with the same gameplay (gameplay mechanics are almost not copyrightable in most countries) and similar graphics but ice-themed.
  • Are Wine and ReactOS derivated works from Microsoft Windows? No. These projects are based in a reimplementation of the win32/win64 API thanks to the black-box testing reverse-engineering, making a compatibility layer for Windows executables and libraries (DLLs), but with code totally open source and without any piece of code from Microsoft. In the look-and-feel context, ReactOS provides a look-and-feel very similar to the Windows 9x/2000, but them are not copyrightable; this, this and this DRs are also good examples how the Copyright Laws apply with software interface and look-and-feel.
In the other side,
  • LibreOffice IS a derivated work of OpenOffice.org, because is a fork of the source code, but the interface would vary (specialy since LibreOffice currently has more development than its older brother Apache OpenOffice).
  • Another example, OS X and NEXTSTEP are derivared from parts of BSD code (Free software). While the BSD is a free license, is too permisive that allows to derivated works (or forks), to revoke the BSD license, making the software non-free (closed source).
  • By contrast, GNUstep is a free software implementation of the open source software and libraries from NeXT, including OpenStep/Cocoa, with interface and look-and-feel close similar to NEXTSTEP, but GPL/LGPL.
The same applies to the agar.io-clone, the gameplay and look and feel are the same, but is not a derivate work, is a clone created in the US (outside the UK jurisdiction, and also Agar.io never sended a Cease and desist or anything else to the agar.io-clone developer).
As Ellin Beltz mentioned in a deletion summary, anyone can make some circles and dots over a notebook paper-like background and write "Agar.io" in common font like Sans. This does not become that a derivated work, just an artwork (specially if them is not created in the UK; if created in the US, it will not be copyrightable in the US). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitie 10g (talk • contribs)

PS: Please avoid using the term Copyrighted, and use Non-free instead, that is unambiguous (read the whole GNU General Public License and you will understajnd why). --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Amitie, you don't need to overemphasize everything you type with boldies. In fact, that does not make your point more valid. You can't compare LibreOffice with OpenOffice, they are both open source; same for the others you cite. Agar.io is different, its gameplay, though simple, is copyrighted, and as such, all derivative versions (the clones you cite all look the same) will be ... obviously derivative, copyrighted works. --Diego Grez return fire 00:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you know very well about the differences between Trademark and Copyright... You're just considering the look-and-feel to assume that these clones are derivated works, but without considering the differences of code and algorithms to ge the near-same results. The Lotus v. Borland case is a great example how the world of software works. If no code from Agar.io found the agar.io-clone repo at Github found (except for the standard Javascript libraries), no copyvio in any way.
I opened this thread in the aim to get concensus from Software and Copyright experts, but I think I need to ask to my teacher or in the ONG Derechos Digitales at Twitter. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the "clone"'s and the original's code, that's not in discussion (and yes, that needed to be emphasized). It's not our matter either. Thing is the interface, the graphic layout, the look, whatever way you call it, is exactly the same as that of the copyrighted game, agar.io. As such, it is a derivative work of a copyrighted piece. --Diego Grez return fire 04:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
a copyrighted piece of what? Circles? I could consier that claiming as Copyright Paranoia, one of the worst problems in Commons (even before the conflictive users, IMHO).
The facts about what is copyrightable and what not is exactly the opposite of your reasoning: derivate works are based in the source code and algorithms (that is copyrightable); clones are based on gameplay mechanics, basically an Idea, that is almost not patentable nor Copyrightable in most countries. Did you even readed the Lotus v. Borland case (y mentioned that three times) and this DR? (considering that these are US-only cases)
Agar.io is not the first and will not be the last game that implemented these kind of gameplay. The Atari Quantum is an early game that Agar.io bay be inspired. And why not mentioning the dozens of clones of Pong and the legal issues involved.
As I found in this issue at GitHub, the only problem with agar.io-clone is the name (again, a Trademark issue, not a Copyvio). By changing the name, legal problems solved, but still no copyvio, due the code is own work.
If these simple shapes are actually copyrightable in the UK, please provide the part of the CDPA that indicates that (at least in Chile, these simple shapes may be copyrightable, I know, unlike the UK legislation). By contrast, in the US (where the clone comes), these simple shapes are not copyrightable, as I mentioned several times. Please provide enough EVID to validate your reasoning. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

LR from IA?

Hi, What about reviewing licenses from images on the Web archive? i.e. File:Priyanka Chopra in 2009.jpg. The image is not available anymore at the source, but the webarchive shows that it was on 2010-05-09. Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Typically I'd be rather meh about sourcing images that way, since they weren't 'obtained' from the copyright holder while they were still openly offering it under that license, but in the case of Bollywood Hungarama (since they have a fairly explicit OTRS ticket, that dates from that time) I think it's okay. Revent (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Uploading actor headshots

Hello,

I am new to all this, and find all copyright information really difficult to understand. I want to upload an acting headshot to my wiki page, but of course I did not take the picture, however the photographer allows actors to use their headshots for all site work etc. How do I go about uploading it? And if so, please give detailed info on how to submit it and what options to select during the submission process.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BriD1988 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@BriD1988: See COM:L, Commons only allows files that are free to be used by anyone for any purpose. A permission for "site work" does certainly not include this. If you want to use an image at English language Wikipedia, you might make use of the fair use exception. It's explained in quite a bit of detail there. --rimshottalk 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Using an image from a copyrighted book with author's permission— what's the policy?

This section was archived on a request by: KDS4444 (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen a good policy-based explanation on what to do in this situation: an author and copyright holder of an image, an image which he has already published in a book, wishes to donate that image under CC-BY-SA 4.0. He's read all the rules, and is willing to send in the permission statement. However, as I said, the image has already been published and is fully copyright protected in his book. Can we accept the image? If not, why not? If so, under what circumstances? KDS4444 (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The only circumstances I can see being a problem would be where the author‘s arrangement with the publishers involved a complete transfer of his rights over the image. Otherwise he’s free to license it as he chooses; prior publication just demands good evidence of authorship and permission. If the publishers were granted an exclusive licence to the material they’d have cause to complain, but AFAICT that would be a contractual matter between him and them, not a copyright issue for us.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
That was one of the answers I was hoping to hear. Thank you, Odysseus1479! — KDS4444 (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

These may all be copyvio

This section was archived on a request by: KDS4444 (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

File:New hubble images.jpg

File:Noahark2.jpg

File:A pic of ron wyatt.jpg

Brand new user - they created an article on en.wiki which was straight copyvio, so I'm assuming they don't know about copyright. Doug Weller (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The copyright information for Hubble images is at this page. The Wyatt image is a clip from this video which can be found all over the web (as can all 3 of these) and is copyright from the Wyatt website. Doug Weller (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Reported all as copyvio. --Diego Grez return fire 19:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright and attribution status of 513 images in :Category:Files from narendramodiofficial Flickr stream

I came across this image File:Prime Minister Narendra Modi waves to people in Thimphu.jpg (only 317 × 200 pixels) attributed to "Narendra Modi" which seemed unlikely as Narendra Modi is the subject in that photo. Looking further saw that it along with 512 other images was uploaded from "Narendra Modi's official Flikr stream" by User:Co9man. The images are attributed to Narendra Modi - and, although the PM of India apparently has a penchant for taking selfies, these are clearly not taken by him. Many are obviously taken by professional photographers and some are old photos of other figures (e.g File:Dr. Rajendra Prasad (narendramodiofficial Flickr).jpg which is a well known photograph taken by I think C. N. Row).

I can't tell whether that Flickr stream is really "official" or not (or a Flikr account set up by a Modi fans or supporters) or whether the CC by SA licences for these images on Flickr are always valid ~ but certainly the attributing the images to "Narendra Modi" looks wrong - and there are no proper attributions on the Flickr stream itself. Many of the images on that Flikr stream pretty clearly originate from other sources without proper indication. Anyway could somebody with experience look into the files in this category which are now on Commons to try and determine their true status and proper attribution. Christopher Fynn (talk)) 04:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  Comment While the account is most probably official, many images here do not have a valid license. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr. Rajendra Prasad (narendramodiofficial Flickr).jpg and several others created, for which the Flickr account is certainly not the creator. Yann (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Video from YouTube

hello what about uploading youtube creative commons videos. i upload this video : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%A9_%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%A9_%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A7_.ogv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noskilomaticha (talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So, if the video is found in Youtube under a CC license, is allowed in Commons. But, is highly recommended to avoid showing non-free contents like the whole Youtube page in order to keep this file here. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Images for Wilton House Museum

I am new to this, and I am having trouble for the copyright for the images of Wilton House Museum. I am interning for Wilton House Museum, and they give me the right to use the image for their Wikipedia page. the pictures are

Also there are pictures from the web source, those pictures are what i found on the net, and i believe it's free for public use how should I gain the copyright for it?

can anyone please help me with this? Maryua1775 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Maryua1775: Hi,
For old pictures (before 1923), we need a date of publication. For pictures between 1923 and 1977, we need a proof that the pictures were published without a copyright notice, or that the copyright wasn't renewed. For other cases, we need a formal written permission from the copyright owner. I hope this helps.
I fixed the license for 2 old paintings. In these case, you can use {{PD-Art-100}}, but you need to provide a date and an author.
It would be best if you can add categories to your images. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Yann:

Thanks for the help! I still have a few question, Most pictures of the building are taking C.1910s, so what kind of tag I can use? Also, I changed the status of File:William Randolph III.jpg but it still showing up "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryua1775 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Maryua1775 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

For images first published in USA before 1923, you can use {{PD-US}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You needed to remove the "no license since" tag, which I just did. As for other works, copyright is generally held by the photographer (unless a work for hire of a company, such as the museum). Simply having a copy of a photo does not mean you own copyright -- if you have the negative or other original, then it might. In the US, if a work was published (not just created, but published) before 1923 then it is public domain today -- you can use the {{PD-1923}} tag. For works published 1923 or later, copyright can last up to 95 years in the US. So, the provenance of each image can be important, and copyright can last a really long time. There are ways for them to become public domain, but it can depend on the publication history. For modern images, they are under copyright... if those modern images are available on the museum website, you might want to go through the COM:OTRS process to identify which images they are licensing freely. Please note that they cannot be licensed to Wikipedia only; they must be licensed freely to everyone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: {{PD-1923}} is for works first published outside of USA, isn't? Yann (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yann, works published anywhere in the world before 1923 are in the public domain in the United States (ignoring 9th circuit wierdness). The {{PD-1923}} tag can be used both for U.S. works and non-U.S. works. However, when used for for non-U.S. works Commons still requires a copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country. —RP88 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. {{PD-1923}} shouldn't be used for US works. There is a reason we have 2 different tags for 2 different copyright cases. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No. PD-US is a more generic tag, when you don't know if it's PD-1923, PD-US-no_notice, or PD-US-not_renewed. If you know the situation more specifically, I don't think that tag should be used but rather one of those three more specific ones. PD-1923 covers the "PD in the US" side of the Commons requirement, regardless where it was published. For a US work, it's the only needed tag. There are of course some other tags like {{PD-old-auto-1923}} for works published in other countries, which indicate both the US status and that in the country of origin using a years-from-authors-death determination as well. Was that what you were thinking of? Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: That's not what the template says. Yann (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it does say that -- the small text mentions that *if* used on a non-U.S. work, another template is required. Which implies use on a U.S. work is fine. We do not have another tag which is specifically for US works published before 1923. PD-US is a less specific tag, for reasons "such as" being before 1923 but also possibly no-notice, etc. It is sometimes used on works where there is a PD declaration from a source we trust but it's not immediately obvious the specific reason why. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree Yann, {{PD-1923}} is a valid tag for pre-1923 published U.S. works. The {{PD-US}} template is not the same, it's a "this work is PD in the U.S. for an unspecified reason" tag. In fact, the documentation for {{PD-US}} even says "If at all possible, please use a more specific tag, such as {{PD-1923}} for US publication before 1923". —RP88 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Then why do we have 2 different tags if they serve the same purpose? *sigh* Regards, Yann (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they serve the same purpose. {{PD-US}} says a work is PD in the U.S., but it declines to say why. As I mentioned above, it's a "this work is PD in the U.S. for an unspecified reason" tag. The {{PD-1923}} template is more specific, it says a work is PD in the U.S. because it was published before 1923. Quite a few of the uses of PD-US on Commons come from older imports from EN.WP where works were originally just marked as "This image is in the public domain in the United States". I think many of the files currently using PD-US could use a more specific tag (such as {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-1978-89}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, or {{PD-US-unpublished}}) and many of the files that can't readily be changed to a more specific tag are probably candidates for deletion. —RP88 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

sorry, one more question, just to clarify

So, i work for the museum, and they want me to use the images that "create before 1923", and they own the images. but they want to use it for the wikipedia page. What process do I need to do? should I go through COM:OTRS??

Maryua1775 (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Maryua1775: Hi,
There are 2 different cases which pictures you can upload here: public domain pictures, and pictures which copyright is owned by the museum. In the first case, you need to show why they are in the public domain (see Commons:Hirtle chart). In the second case, some legal representative from the museum needs to send a permission (see COM:OTRS). Regards, Yann (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Technically, the law is *published* before 1923, not just created. If the photos were not private photos given to the museum later on but rather collected, then they were probably published, and anything published before 1923 can be uploaded with the {{PD-1923}} tag as mentioned. Works which the museum owns the copyright to (such as modern works) need to be licensed, and the COM:OTRS process should be used (at a minimum) to validate your user account as having authority to license such works. We are careful not just for our own site, but since Commons is a database of material others can use (Wikipedia being just one), we try to be overly careful to only host works which have been licensed for anyone to use (or are public domain, i.e. the copyright has expired). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

en:File:John Stewart Macarthur.jpg

Hello to all, there is a discussion on this file on the French WP Village Pump, I said that if this is indeed from the 1890s and the author is unknown, chances are it could be uploaded to Commons as public domain even if the place of first publication is unknown and may be other than the USA. What do you think, could the en:Template:PD-URAA licence put by the uploader en:User:Noodleki (User:Noodleki) be changed for uploading to Commons? I will translate the answers to those who asked on the French WP. Oliv0 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In any case there's a far better portrait of him at [6] (recto) and [7] (verso) by Elliott & Fry. Lupo 10:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Given his age, I'm guessing that is after 1900 and maybe closer to 1910 or so, given some of the other pictures here where he is noticeably younger. There is one dated 1896 where he is young, and several ones a bit older than that (though still before 1905 probably) while still younger than the one in question. User:Lupo noted one of them, where the copyright was explicitly claimed by the UK photography studio on the back and has expired as PD-UK-unknown, so there is really no doubt about that one. An Australian portrait there seems (not entirely sure given the bad quality scan) to be the one used in an obituary here, so that was published too. As for the one you linked... it is most likely OK, but without any info at all it is hard to say for sure. If it qualifies for PD-1923, and it is in fact anonymous (the most likely case), then it would also qualify for Anonymous-EU and be OK for Commons. He travelled widely though (the linked page has photos from the UK, Australia, South Africa, and Mexico) so country of origin could be harder, though personal photographs may only have been published later in the UK, who knows. It could have been taken from an obituary somewhere when he died in 1920, but without publication info, it's also impossible to be certain about PD-1923. I think at least a couple of the other ones linked above though would be OK for Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I do not know enough about copyright subtleties to really understand it all and translate it, but I uploaded and used in WP the Elliott & Fry portrait suggested, and I told the French WP about it: File:Jsmacarthur-X-007r.jpg. The licence I chose in UploadWizard is maybe not quite the right one, please correct it if this is the case. Oliv0 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Carl Lindberg for the licence! Oliv0 (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Foody

Hello, I have a doubt. Can I upload this picture of the Expo Milano 2015 mascot. Ta --Bigfan (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bigfan, me too, the license it's okay, but I don't know about the sculpture, depending the country law, this could be a infringement or not. Sorry for not helping here. -- RTA 03:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reinstating high res version of File:Tahrir Square on February11.png

 

There have been several attempts to upload a higher resolution of this file, each time it has been reverted stating that only the low res version has been made available under CC. All resolution versions of an image are released under the same CC license as described on the CC website here.

if the low-resolution and high-resolution copies are the same work under applicable copyright law, permission under a CC license is not limited to a particular copy, and someone who receives a copy in high resolution may use it under the terms of the CC license applied to the low-resolution copy.

Please can someone reinstate the the high version?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we (or at least many of us, including me) are in fundamental disagreement with that argument, and want to continue to respect resolution restrictions. I absolutely think that authors can choose to license just a portion of a work -- be that the left half, only a version modified with some filter, or a reduced-resolution version. I cannot imagine a court disallowing a restriction like that from a copyright author, really. It's not something I would like to expose Commons users to, so I would recommend only uploading versions at a resolution known to be licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mindspillage: , any suggestions?John Cummings (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI: You may also contact "Johnathan Rashad" in this matter personally via User:Drumzo... apart from this, I agree with Clindberg... Gunnex (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I should emphasize the cart of the FAQ that you cited. But the actual questions are
  • Should not the CC licenses apply to the work itself, regardless the resolution? (considerin that the original, high-resolution version has All rights reserved, but not inherited to smaller resolution, that is relicensed).
This is somewhat complicated. Contact the author is the better way to clarify this issue.

File:Simple Plan Brazil 2012.jpg

This file has been uploaded as "own work" but the page contains little in the way of camera details etc. and a simple right click and 'search google for this image' reveals its use in other locations. I could be completely barking up the wrong tree here as I am not in any way expert when it comes to copyright etc. Think someone ought to check though. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

At the very least it appears on the band's official site here with an upload date of January 2013. So... correct, we would not accept "own work" but would require the band to verify the license via COM:OTRS. The image should be nominated for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for response. Do I tag/nominate? Or does someone else have to do that? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Update. Tagged for deletion. Eagleash (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Colors in map of Israel Railways

How critical is it that our map of the Israel Railways (File:Israel Railway map Hebrew English sb.svg) lines use the same colors as the original, copyrighted map (at http://www.rail.co.il/HE/Tickets/Map/Pages/map.aspx)? Keep in mind that the colors are neither any marking on the actual infrastructure (trains, stations, etc), nor the names of the lines (unlike the MBTA lines, where the colors are, in fact, both). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Answered at Commons:Upload help#Colors in map of Israel Railways (before I noticed this entry). I understand that not getting a reply for several days can be frustrating, but please don't crosspost (especially without mentioning that you have). Marking this section as resolved to prevent forking of the discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 21:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone upload his/her father's art work?

Can someone upload his/her father's art work?--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@ԱշոտՏՆՂ: Hi,
Yes, but we usually require a formal written permission via COM:OTRS in this case. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Query about 100+ year old image from Chinese album

Is the scanned image of this book OK to upload to Commons? According to published research, it is from the late Qing dynasty, so over 100 years old, as the Qing dynasty ended in 1912. No artist is known. Would it fall under the criteria of faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art or does the presence of the book fold in the middle make it three-dimensional? I would like to use it for en:Miniskirt as the Duan Qun Miao are discussed in the article, and am having trouble finding anything else that is definitely PD. Thank you for your thoughts on this. If it is valid, there are a bunch of other fascinating scans from the same album that appear as if they would be VERY useful to have on Commons. I see we have a few similar artworks in Category:Miao, particularly in Category:Ethnography of the Lolo and Miaotzu tribes of Szechuan (i.e., Kweichow) Province (1910). Mabalu (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is OK, I would use {{PD-Art|PD-anon-1923}} license. --Jarekt (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I will use the smaller version of the image just to be safe. Mabalu (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright for signatures

Dear Madame/Sir, I would like to ask you for your help in the following issue. Someone uploaded the signature of the well known film and theatre director Kornél Mundruczó to Commons. My question is how it would be possible to disable it? I ask you this in my name, but also in the name of Kornél Mundruczó himself. Many thanks for you kind help in advance! Váradi Annamária vita 2015. október 16., 16:50 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Váradi Annamária (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Are you refering to this DR? First, the file is widely in use. And second, the simple signatures are not subject of Copyright in most countries, in other works, them are in the Public Domain; Commons takes care only on Copyright, not anything else. Even if you're the owner of the signature, a courtesy deletion is very hard to do, but let the admins to decide. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to that. I can't understand how it can be all right for Wikipedia to keep the signature of a living person in case that person is asking for deletion and in case the signature was already used for misuse... Váradi Annamária vita 2015. október 18., 16:05 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Váradi Annamária (talk • contribs) 14:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not our matter, Váradi. Like somebody else told you in these DRs, there's no valid reason to delete the signature of Mr. Mundruczó. It has no copyright, and since he's a public person, it's unlikely the signature will be deleted "for courtesy" reasons. --Diego Grez return fire 15:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

From this point of view, nothing is nobodies matter. Neither the wish of someone, nor the problems of the refugees... Váradi Annamária vita 2015. október 21., 12:32 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Váradi Annamária (talk • contribs) 10:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Removed personal attack. --Diego Grez return fire 18:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Republic of Korea" account/Flickr

This discussion is a follow-up of this one

Hello,

During the licence reviewing process, I came across this picture licenced CC-BY-SA-2.0 on Commons. Of course, the picture was published under the same licence on Flickr, but the description clearly states: "This official Republic of Korea photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way. Also, it may not be used in any type of commercial, advertisement, product or promotion that in any way suggests approval or endorsement from the government of the Republic of Korea" which is clearly ND + NC and also restrict the usage. Be careful with that account.

Scoopfinder(d) 11:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

See {{Korea.net}}. Images from that Flickr stream should be fine, and tagged with that license template. (pinging @Túrelio: as well) Revent (talk)
I would welcome input from our legal/copyright experts wrt the question whether to consider the license as valid or give more weight to the restriction in the image caption.
This situation is similar (though also different) to the one with Flickr-pages from U.S. federal government agencies who offer own images under a CC-BY-NC license. We don't take this restricted license seriously because we know that U.S. gov works are PD.
WRT to the Korean images, I think we should consider them incompatible for Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
My statement that they 'should be fine' is based on assuming that the issue was discussed when the OTRS ticket on the template was handled. I have no objections to the issue being revisited, of course, but we have over 5600 images from that Flickr stream, not all of which have the restriction in the description. I would not be at all surprised if the restriction is the artifact of an earlier embargo period, and that the images are supposed to be CC-BY-SA-2.0, but it's definitely worth double checking. Revent (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Initially I didn't see the "Republic of Korea" account and korea.net related and therefore my reply wasn't directed at your statement. Now I see they are, which even complicates the problem. A few hours ago, some "Charles Antonier - Wikimedia" left a comment wrt to the licensing discrepancy at the Flickr page[8]. Lets see if he gets an answer. --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket date from 2014 and the image was published in 2015, it is probably not an "artifact of an earlier embargo period". For the rest, according to COM:PCP, I have the same opinion as Túrelio, but the situation might seem more complex than what I thought (had no clue about the {{Korea.net}}-template or the OTRS ticket). --Scoopfinder(d) 12:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
What I meant by that, specifically, is that the images with the restriction shown on Flickr may have been previously released under those terms (embargoed) on the korea.net website, and then re-released on Flickr under the CC license without the text about the restriction being removed. If not removing the text about the restriction was just an 'omission' (and a release under CC terms was intended) then they are okay. Revent (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
(FWIW, I only just noticed how new that particular photo is. I might indeed by wrong about the 'direction' of the error here.) Revent (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I contacted them to sort this out. Let's see if they reply in the next days... --Scoopfinder(d) 12:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully they'll make it clearer. Revent (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Revent and Túrelio: The copyright of the picture has changed and is definitely not compatible with Commons (CC-BY-NC-SA), even if that still doesn't make sense with the description that state something like CC-BY-ND-NC-SA or even more restrictive. In all cases, that specific picture should stay deleted.
I also got this reply in private: "I changed as you request. All photos suppose to be CC-BY-SA. If you you find any other photos are not CC-BY-SA, let me know. Thank you"--Scoopfinder(d) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But this is also proof that the Flickr-account owner has no idea about CC licenses. They now changed it to ..NC.., when they should have changed it to -..NC-ND.. per their own words "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way." --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
(sigh) That's the worst answer, since it basically means we can't trust the bot to correctly check these, but instead rely on if they had the restrictions in the description. As a quick ballpark 'guesstimate' at the potential size of the drama (and this is obviously extremely rough). The "Files from Korea.net Flickr stream" includes 5680 files, all presumably (and this can be checked with catscan) added by {{Korea.net}}, and since they were added by someone who was aware of the template, all at least 'presumably' ok. Searching for 'insource: 42438955@N05' (the ID number for that Flickr stream) gives 1650 files, and 'insource: koreanet' (the actual stream name) gives 5019, for a total of 6669. That means we have (possibly) as many as a thousand files from this source that were not correctly verified by the bot, as a rather pessimistic worst case. Not cool. Just at a quick glance, I almost immediately found the search 'insource: album-72157626585071327', which gives 19 images from a particular album that (from a quick skim of a few) all look like they have the restriction stated in the Flickr description. Rather sucks. I'm not deleting them right this moment, so that non admins can see the results of the search, but based on this the obviously need to go away, and probably many others. Revent (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should wait, I responsed saying that it would have been better to distribute it under a free licence. As stated by Túrelio, they might have actually no clue about the implications of each licence (which was already the case as seen in the OTRS ticket). --Scoopfinder(d) 07:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Revent, don't be too pessimist. You will find such problems also with other officials accounts. "Normal" people have no idea about licenses, and, frankly, why should they. They want to share something on Flickr or elsewhere, and suddenly are exposed to forced legal options (Choose a license for your image!) which they didn't expect. We can't completely rely on a bot for this. How often we stumble over seemingly "correctly licensed" on Flickr (uploader choose a Commons-compatible license), which are blatant copyvios, stolen from Getty or alike. --Túrelio (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
(nods) Yeah, I was not saying we should immediately start mass deletions.. it needs careful assessment, and some kind of group agreement about how to handle it, if for nothing else because of the amount of work needed to fix it. I was just trying to make it clear that if there is a real issue with them putting incorrect licenses on Flickr then it's not a minor problem, and will need some systematic checking to sort it out. I was really hoping it was a case of multi-licensing, and them just not removing the old info. Revent (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
(I've been well aware, for a long time, that there were 'many' images from this source, but was under the impression that the existence of the OTRS ticket addressed any inconsistencies. If it turns out that we have a bunch of images from this source that need to go away, I'll be a bit annoyed, though I can't say the depletion of our stock of K-Pop images will exactly make me sad, lol) Revent (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Revent and Túrelio: I got this answer: "I changed all photos as CC-BY-SA(Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike)". Well, I don't know what to think now. --Scoopfinder(d) 07:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Revent, Túrelio, and Scoopfinder: I am the one who dealt with Jeon Han of Korea.net via Flickr and worked with him to change licencing of their Flickr photos to CC-BY-SA. Much of this was done in Korean, with the help of @-revi: . I have continued to correspond with him in English on various other issues. I could go back to Jeon Han and talk to him about this, but it is going to need the blessing of this community given this bullshit spouted about me on this project (check the revdelled posts by myself to understand what I mean). It is very clear to me that CC-BY-SA still allows for the restrictions in some of the descriptions -- i.e. no commercial use which implies endorsement by Korea.net -- i.e. use commercially, just don't imply endorsement, etc. Some people know how to get in touch with me, so let me know what it is you decide. 110.141.163.178 21:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and if it's decided you don't want my help, then simply add {{Change-of-license}} to each of the images and move on. 110.141.163.178 21:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Uhm, anyone mind giving me TL;DR? I can try to contact them if you wish. — regards, Revi 04:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@-revi: This picture (one example) was marked as CC-BY-SA but the description statted "non commerical, no derivative, no use when not allowed" which makes it "all rights reserved" in my opinion. We tried to contact them and they changed the licence twice, twicely wrong. The response was: "I changed all photos as CC-BY-SA(Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike)" so we know for sure that they have no clue about what they are doing. The question now: do we accept it despite the description since it is released under the CC-BY-SA licence (before changing)? Do we try to discuss more with them? anything else? --Scoopfinder(d) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Baltimore police patches

File:Baltimore City Police Rocker Patch used from 1952 to 1967.png and File:Baltimore City Police Patch used from 1968-1974.png were both uploaded as "own work" and licensed under CC 4.0. I believe it's possible the uploader photographed or scanned the patches, but not very likely they created them. Not sure what should be done in this case, since the former patch is just text and the latter is just text and some heraldry elements. Should these be tagged with {{Wrong license}} or nominated for deletion? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, At least nothing to do for the first one. Not sure about the second one, but some of these designs are {{PD-US no notice}} or {{PD-US not renewed}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The patches themselves are either PD-ineligible or PD-US-no_notice. The photographs though might have a copyright, if we treat them similarly to photographs of coins. But the images appear to have been copied from here, so they are not "own work" and the license is bogus. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't see this page. I get "403: Access Forbidden - Your location (FR) has been blacklisted." LoL Yann (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Me neither: "Your location (CH) has been blacklisted". LOL Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Does an archive.org link work for you? The blacklisting is pretty bizarre/hilarious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Lol, "403: Access Forbidden. Your location (CL) has been blacklisted." --Diego Grez return fire 03:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for taking a look. Can the licensing be fixed or do these need to be tagged for deletion since the licenses are bogus per Carl Lindberg?

What about accommodations/badges such as File:The Special Commendation of the Eastern District Initiative.png, File:15 Year Safe Driving Award.png, File:Baltimore Police Bronze Star.png? A number of these have also been uploaded by the same uploader as "own work".

Finally, just a general question about patches. There are quite a few similar police department patches such as en:File:Chicago Police Patch.png, en:File:Boston Police patch.jpg, en:File:Philadelphia Police Department patch.png, etc. uploaded as non-free to Wikipedia. Is it possible for these to also be treated as "PD-ineligible" or "PD-US-no_notice"? I've noticed that a few patches such as File:Patch of the San Diego Police Department.png and File:CA - San Francisco Police.png have been uploaded as PD to Commons so I'm curious if the same can be done for other police patches. Thanks again for all the help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, California and Florida are 2 special cases, where works by the State employees are in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
If they are older patches, i.e. used before March 1 1989, they are PD-US-no_notice almost certainly. The question then becomes the copyright on the photograph itself. If people think it's close enough for PD-Art, it's OK, but if it's more like a photo of a coin and has a copyright, then that is what we need to be concerned about. As mentioned by Yann, if the photo (or post-1989 patch) is {{PD-CAGov}} or {{PD-FLGov}}, it's OK as well. I think those two Commons images use PD-CAGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yann and Carl Lindberg for the clarification. So, if I find a photo online (or take a photo myself) of a patch that was used prior to March 1, 1989, then I would still need a free license for the photo even though the patch may be "PD-ineligible", right? I'm not going to do that, just curious for future reference.
Regarding "PD-CAGOV" and "PD-FLGOV, many of the official seals in en:Category:Official seals of places in California and en:Category:Official seals of places in Florida were uploaded as non-free. Would these qualify as PD under the two aforementioned licenses and thus be OK to move to Commons? Also, en:File:Patch of the Santa Barbara Count Sheriff's Office.png and en:File:SantaBarbaraCountyFireDepartmentLogo.png were uploaded as non-free. Could these be converted to public domain? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The two categories on enwiki which you mentioned contain a lot of PD pictures which are erroneously tagged as non-free. Those should normally be changed into {{PD-CAGov}} or {{PD-FLGov}}. This is also why there is no __NOGALLERY__ on the category pages. w:WP:NFCC requires a "nogallery" tag on categories which contain non-free files. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
First of all, thanks to Yann for converting the two Santa Barbara logos to "PD-CAGOV". Also, thanks to Stefan4 for taking a look at the category pages. Do all of the erroneously tagged logos need to be converted to PD manually or is there a bot that can do the job? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of public domain files on English Wikipedia which are incorrectly tagged as unfree, mainly textlogos. I'm not aware of any tool to easily convert the FUR templates into {{Information}}. I clean up files by moving them to Commons when I have time, but there are too many of those files on Wikipedia to handle them all. As long as their use does not conflict with the non-free content criteria (for example, because a file is used outside the article namespace), it might be easier to just leave them where they are. --Stefan4 (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Understand. I may take a whack at cleaning them up a little at a time then because I've the same for other files in the past. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried cleaning up the ones from Florida by copying them to Commons, but found that many have no sources or incorrect/outdated sources. For example, w:File:Miamispringsseal.png has no source but simply states that "The logo may be obtained from Miami Springs, Florida." Wikipedia's article about the city links to this page which does not contain any seal. w:File:Bonita springs seal.png claims that "The logo is from the http://www.cityofbonitasprings.org/ website." However, that website seems to contain a different seal. I don't feel comfortable about moving the files to Commons if I can't verify that the seals really are correct and created by the government of Florida. I assume that many sources can be fixed by searching for the images on Google, but that takes more time. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. If I do take a stab at it, I'll stick to the the ones that have proper sourcing, etc. and leave the iffy ones as is or ask about them at en:WP:NFCR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

BHL-no known restrictions

Could someone with language template skills take a look at {{BHL-no known restrictions}}? This will only be used where the Biodiversity Heritage Library have "no known copyright restrictions by the scanning institution" in the file metadata. I'm reading this as equivalent to how we accept files from their official Flickrstream on the same NKCR basis. I'm adding PD-1923 whenever the date makes it possible, and could add other filters if it becomes apparent that there are issues with later material or the tertiary sources.

It should stay a fairly non-fancy template, as a credit template with an image already is being used for these collections. A first example is File:Mary Agnes Chase expedition to Brazil, 1924-1925 (Page 1) BHL46286140.jpg, part of the Smithsonian Field Books collection. --Fæ (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How status of theese files is different to the file disputed here? Ankry (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
If you look at a sample, these are assured to have no copyright known by the donating institution and are "old" books being scanned. The BHL has files in its archives that are NC/ND or where no copyright is stated. In these particular cases they have specifically stated that there are no known restrictions rather than staying nothing. It seems low risk to me and I'm unsure why the disputed example you raise is especially relevant unless you think the URAA is an issue? There may be BHL files which have been deleted that would be better to raise as counter examples, or feel free to raise some of the uploaded BHL files up for deletion and make some practical case studies.
... Anyway, I'm still hoping that some kind template wizard will take a look at this draft NKCR template. --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the template to add localization support as well as machine-readable license information. I haven't performed a serious review of their content to see if they and their contributing institutions are actually competent when identifying a work as "no known copyright restrictions". We've traditionally had a pretty high bar on delegating this determination to the source, mostly insisting that the uploader identify the specific reason a work is PD. However, we've definitely permitted this in the past for institutions we trust (e.g. the Library of Congress, Getty, etc). I have no reason to believe that they make inaccurate assessments. —RP88 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@RP88: Thanks for that, it looks great. With regard to the institutions doing the scanning, this is not an unmanageable set, refer to http://biodivlib.wikispaces.com/BHL+Consortium where they are listed. If we have a scan that the Commons community assesses as unsuitable for NKCR, then it is easy to filter firstly by book, then by the donating institution to see if there is a wider pattern of questionable copyright. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright query re UK Gov PD

I'm trying to sort out the formalites for these uploads File:Tranlation of the German Operation Skorpion Operation Order 5.JPG File:Translation of the German Operation Skorpion Operation Order 4.JPG File:Translation of the German Operation Skorpion Operation Order 2.JPG File:Translation of the German Operation Skorpion Operation Order 1.JPG File:Translation of the German Operation Skorpion Operation Order 3.JPG File:Translation of the German Operation Skorpion Operation Order 6.JPG File:War Diary of the 8th Field Regiment.pdf

and am struggling with copyright labels, can anyone help? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Keith-264, you haven't provided a lot of background details regarding these uploads, so I'm going to restate what I think has occurred. Please let me know if I get any details incorrect.
  1. In 1941 an officer of the 8th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, wrote an intelligence assessment in part based on a translated German document.
  2. This intelligence assessment is currently part of the regimental war diary, held at the National Archives, reference WO 169/1447.
  3. Access to the diary was closed for 29 years (i.e. until circa 1970), but access is now open.
  4. Because these records are not digitized, you visited the Archives yourself, and took photos of the portion that was of interest to you. These photos are File:Translation of the German Operation Skorpion Operation Order 1.JPG, File:Translation of the German Operation Skorpion Operation Order 2.JPG, .... File:Translation of the German Operation Skorpion Operation Order 7.JPG.
  5. Using those photos, you created your own transcription, and uploaded it as File:War Diary of the 8th Field Regiment.pdf.
I think the original document is Crown copyright, and as derivative works of the original document, your photos and transcriptions can't be freely licensed unless the original Crown copyright has expired. The duration of Crown copyright for literary material varies depending whether material is published or unpublished. Unpublished Crown literary material was originally subject to copyright protection in perpetuity. However, the 1988 Act removed this concept from British law. Transitional provisions that apply for 50 years after the entry into force of the 1988 Act provide that no unpublished Crown literary material will lose its copyright protection until 1 January 2040. New Crown copyright literary material that is unpublished has copyright protection for 125 years from date of creation. Published Crown copyright literary material has protection for 50 years from date of publication. A nice flow chart of this copyright evaluation can be found on the last page of The National Archives: Copyright and related rights. While it is clear that the war diary in question has been made available to the public, I can't find any evidence that it has been published. Do you know when and where this war diary was first published? If it is an unpublished literary work of the Crown created in 1941, it's copyright will expire in 2067. —RP88 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I fear it isn't published unless being freely available to the public counts. I fear it has to go. Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The National Archive does not consider its material published merely due to it being accessible to the public via their archives (see pg. 4 of The National Archives: Copyright and related rights). However, even if public access to the records does count as publication, the war diary in question only became accessible to the public in 1970, so even in that case the Crown copyright wouldn't expire until 2021. Do you know if anyone has commercially published copies of this portion of the war diary prior to 1965? That that were true, we could definitely keep these files. —RP88 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What if WO 169/1447 is quoted as a source in the bibliography of a book?Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe a UK court would consider the publication of a mere citation to WO 169/1447 in the bibliography of a work to be the same as actually publishing the contents of the diary referenced by WO 169/1447. —RP88 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
That's it then.Keith-264 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

6 CC-By-SA photos merged and manipulated; is product necessarily CC-By-SA?

Please consider File:Evans-mabey-mandiberg-ptak-howard-knipel in Foreign Policy 2014.jpg.

This image is a derivative of six CC-By-SA images linked in the file description.

The remix is published by en:Foreign Policy, a magazine. They routinely use default copyright and did not make a free license declaration for this image.

Am I right to upload this image to Wikimedia Commons with a CC-By-SA license? Could I please have opinions on this, either in approval, speaking against, or just commenting "not sure"? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You can not license this image if you are not its author. Of course, they must license it as CC-By-SA, but they have not done this (if this is true). So, this image is a copyright violation because it is not licensed as CC-By-SA. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Bluerasberry, the reuse of these files by Foreign Policy involves "the same or similar licenses". --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Based on what I can see on the website linked above, I disagree. Perhaps the derivative work should have been licensed by the authors or publishers according to the SA condition, but I don’t see evidence it was, just that Wikimedia Commons is listed on the Credits page. The licence deed doesn’t say anything about remedies for breaches of the terms, but in many jurisdictions derivative works that violate copyright are considered the property of the original rights-holders. At any rate, while the photographers (jointly or severally) may be in a position to demand that Foreign Policy comply with the licence or take the collage down, nobody else can presume the outcome of such a hypothetical negotiation, especially since journalism usually falls under “fair use“.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Probably not. The magazine may have received a separate license for the base images, meaning they may not be subject to making all derivative works also CC-BY-SA, thus the additional expression they added (the drawing parts) may have a separate, unfree copyright. There could also be an argument that the result is an arrangement of the photos and the drawings, i.e. a collection, which does not trigger the share-alike provisions in the first place (thus the copyright on the drawn parts is independent). It's in the gray area. But without knowing that the magazine is in fact using the photos under the CC-BY-SA license, I don't think we can infer the license of the result. They could also be claiming fair use of publicity materials. Or they could indeed be violating the CC-BY-SA license -- but in that case it's up to the copyright holders to complain to the magazine, and the situation could be rectified by removing the image from the website, etc. In short, the additional copyright on the drawing portions does not actually become CC-BY-SA unless it is explicitly marked that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ruslik0, Clindberg, and Odysseus1479: I wrote to the magazine for clarification and also to ask them if they would apply a free license to the collage. Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.
I requested that if they would apply a free license they send the "declaration" text to OTRS. I know it is not entirely appropriate, but I posted the Template:OTRS pending to the image as a way of indicating that it is in limbo and its copyright has not yet been confirmed. If I get word that the magazine will not apply a free license then I will queue the image for deletion.
Thanks you three and Christian Ferrer too. I found this interesting to consider. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
For a bit of more detail on Carl's conclusion and why there is no such thing as a "viral license", this is pretty much the canonical article. It deals with the GPL, but the same basic principles apply to all common copyleft licenses. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
LX Thanks - this is an interesting read and insightful from 2003. I might try to highlight this article elsewhere - thanks for sharing the memory of this piece. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bluerasberry: If the files were published first on Commons with license that includes Share alike : "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.". Picasso or Renoir themselves can modify these images if they want, they can not claim about the entire copyright of the result, of the "derivative work", even if a part of this derivative work is a drawing because that stay a derivative artwork made with existing content previously published before they add a drawing. This was the condition that they could use the base contents, no matter what they then adds. And if they add copyrighted content (drawing or something else), or they are the copyright owners and they must publish the result "under the same or similar license to this one", or they are not the copyright owner and can not publish the image at all. IMO no matter of what they can reply to your email. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The real question is : have they the right, themselves, to publish this derivative work, if yes (me I think yes), the result is inevitably under a similar license. Or they are illegally because they take ownership of the rights that are not theirs. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry, no you absolutely do not have the right to licence this work because it is someone else's work. With respect to User:Clindberg who is far more clued than me, I think CL is conflating whether this is (a) a derivative work with its own copyright (I'm pretty certain it is due to the arrangement and green drawings on top of the photos) and whether those additional aspects could be legally unfree (uncertain). The former means it must be considered to be the work of someone other than the authors of the original photos. As other have said, one cannot licence a work if one is not the author. Someone else in Foreign Policy magazine is. The fact that they may have broken the CC terms is a matter between them and the photographers and does not entitle us to force a licence on the derivative work. They could, for example, pay the original photographers a fee in order to settle the matter. Or simply withdraw the image from publication with an apology, if that is acceptable to them.

I'm not very familiar with OTRS but from your text above, you are in early stages in communication with the magazine, so I don't see how an "OTRS pending" template is acceptable. There's too much "not entirely appropriate" stuff going on already. If someone from the magazine has sent a permission email and it hasn't been processed yet, then that is something else. But I don't see any indication that OTRS is pending at all. Could I upload one of David Hockney's photos and stick that template on it to fend off a DR for a month while I await his rejection letter? Finally, you yourself are breaking CC BY-SA by not listing the authors of the original works and the author of the derivative work on the image description page. The text saying "I assert that this derivative image is also CC-By-SA." absolutely must be deleted as it is just legally nonsense and I wouldn't want anyone else to copy this idea. I suggest that unless you are aware that Foreign Policy magazine has released the image under CC BY-SA (and identified its author) then you request the image be deleted. We don't upload and then ask for permission.

Christian Ferrer, as LX's link explains, there is no viral aspect to CC so it can't automatically make a derivative work CC. Releasing it under CC is something that the magazine should do. But they could equally say "so sue me" to the photographers, and that's none of our business. Also, I don't understand your comment about "take ownership of the rights". Remember that all CC-licensed images are still completely under full copyright by the authors. There's never any transfer of rights (such as might happen if I give my images to Getty). The images I upload to Commons remain mine. And that magazine image remains owned by the magazine. The only "taking ownership of rights" I see going on here is by Bluerasberry, when he tried to licence someone else's work. -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Colin Delete the photo if you like, and respond how you like. I am unwilling to take action at this time other than talking for a reasonable amount of time - till this weekend - after which time I would queue the photo for deletion myself.
I am talking with the magazine and they are friendly to talk with their lawyers about this. The negotiation for the copyright is more advanced than I described, and at a stage which is typical for OTRS confirmation in my opinion. Lots of people give some agreement for an upload and then need to have a discussion about completing an OTRS ticket - I think this situation is not so unusual in that regard. Nothing with an OTRS pending ticket on it should be presumed to have a free license. Having the image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons helps with the negotiation because it demonstrates the proposed terms of usage in a very real way, and not infrequently, people only consider the copyright of their content after it is on Wikipedia. Some months ago I also talked with staff at the magazine about this and got positive encouragement to share images relating to a project from which this photo was taken. I presumed too much, but I not acting totally without encouragement from their side.
Other points - I made an attempt at attribution by listing the files from which this was derived and naming the remixer. You might not like the attribution I did, but there is no standard for doing this, and I gave it a solid attempt that can be corrected or developed. Yes, Creative Commons does transfer some copyrights, including the right to republish.
I think I am fair to be confused because there is a widespread belief in the Wikimedia community that if someone uses CC-By-SA content to make a derivative work then the original content in that new work (not necessarily any creative additions) will have a CC-By-SA license. This belief is not so, but I do not feel so terribly wrong for having a passing idea that it would be, and furthermore I think that Wikimedia Commons should do a better job of communicating that the derivatives of CC-By-SA work cannot be presumed to also be "share alike". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, being "unwilling to take action" isn't really an option for you. You have uploaded an image that is not free. You have offered an image with a CC licence that you do not own. You have published that image on your user pages on Wikipedia. That's three things a lawyer could get you for, and could lead to you being blocked if you refuse to do something about it. If you read Commons:OTRS you will see the instructions are perfectly clear that you must contact the copyright holder and receive permission to release the image under a free licence before you upload to Commons. The OTRS Pending stuff is merely the latency between you getting the permission you need (as uploader) and Commons getting and documenting proof of this. Sorry, but OTRS pending is not a get-out-of-jail-free card and does not permit anyone to upload unfree images without the consent of the copyright holder on a temporary basis.
I'm flabbergasted that you think appropriating someone else's work like this is a helpful, never mind legal, approach to obtaining permission. I sincerely hope this is not common practice anywhere. Are you really saying you write "I've uploaded your image and it is already widely used on wikipedia articles in numerous languages, would you mind offering it with a free licence?". I can assure you, as a content creator, that people do consider the copyright of their content before it is on Wikipedia, and they consider it "all rights reserved".
As far as attribution is concerned, we like to follow best practice and explicitly document the author(s) of work, rather than relying on a link to some other web or wiki page. This is standard practice for image description pages.
Creative Commons does not transfer any copyrights. You are confusing transfer with offer. It permits the user some "Licensed Rights" provided they meet the terms of the licence. And the CC FAQ explains that the licence terminates automatically if the terms are not followed.
I don't know if this misconception is widespread. If you are aware of documents/users spreading this myth, then we should correct that. I do recall Doc James being confused about about this, but he was corrected at the time. Remember that CC licences are the responsibility of Creative Commons, not Wikimedia Commons or WMF. Other licences such as FAL and GFDL are used here. The responsibility for understanding the terms of the licence falls with the user or uploader. Images on Commons may have several licences, and one can never presume that an image (or a derivative work) elsewhere is using the same licences (or any licence) that is listed here. In your last sentence you said "derivatives of CC-By-SA work" -- this is partly where you went wrong. There is no such thing as a "CC-By-SA work". There is a work of copyright and there is a licence that the creator offers for reuse. These are separate things. CC does not infect the work (i.e. it can be used/offered under other terms) nor does it infect any derivative work or publication using that work. -- Colin (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Colin
  • We are not on the same page
  • I did not do what you say that I did
  • I did some incorrect things and learned from the experience
  • We are not in agreement on the facts of the action I took, and without you believing that I did what I said, I see no path forward in discussion
  • Do you what you like with the file - if you do not delete it then I queue it for deletion my Saturday (1.5 days from now)
  • I will talk to you by voice or video. Text is a poor way to have a discussion of this sort.
  • I dispute your interpretation of Creative Commons licenses. Like everyone else here I love talking about CC licensing and coming to agreement, but not in the context of you flabbergasting.
  • This is not a big deal and I already committed to fix the issue.
  • Chill - I stay in good contact and communicate about problems. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Bluerasberry, I can be flabbergasted and chilled. You need to appreciate that these copyright concerns are between you, the magazine and the original photographers and I go to bed quite unconcerned to send any images for deletion (I'm not an admin, and not interested in it). I'm just kinda surprised that you asked some questions and when you got answers that indicate you've done something wrong, you do nothing about it. You quite clearly stated that uploading prior to negotiation over licensing was "helpful". Which is concerning. I do hope that in your negotiations with the magazine, you haven't wrongly indicated that they must release the resulting image under CC BY-SA, since other perfectly legal options are open to them. The file page still says "Because all six images are "share alike", I assert that this derivative image is also CC-By-SA". Are you still asserting that? If you want to move the discussion on, you could be clearer about which parts you think I misunderstand, rather than just waving your hands and saying I've got stuff wrong. For starters, did you get formal approval that the magazine has released the image under CC BY-SA before uploading it to Commons? It's a simple yes or no. -- Colin (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Colin No. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, well as long as you agree that is against policy and likely to be breaking copyright laws, and not a good idea in future, then we're "on the same page". -- Colin (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Colin Yes not a good idea in the future. I nominated the file for deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Colin: "ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original." this is very clear, I read "must" and not "should", this is exactly what I wanted to say : if their image is copyrighted not published under a similar license it's because they "take (illegally) ownership of the rights", but of course they can not, I agree with you. In what I understood CC is not viral but SA yes. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • You might be right that this is a violation of the CC-BY-SA license, and that their use may therefore be a copyright violation. However, that does *not* make any additional copyrightable material CC-BY-SA -- only a positive declaration from *that* author can do that. Until that happens, they may be violating copyright -- but their new material is still fully copyrighted by them and we can't use it. Additionally, there are several possibilities where even their current use is *not* a copyright violation:
      1. They may have obtained a separate license privately to use the originals in their work. There is no way for us to know that.
      2. They could claim fair use of the publicity materials. If it's fair use, then there is no violation and no need to apply CC-BY-SA terms. Publicity photographs may have an implied license separate from CC-BY-SA.
      3. The result might be considered an arrangement of the original works and new drawing, and not an adaptation. The CC-BY-SA viral terms only apply to adaptations, not collections which simply copy the originals. The CC-BY-SA-3.0 legal code made this distinction clear; in the 4.0 license they decided there was no need for the "collection" language since that simply defined what the terms did *not* cover, so they removed it without changing the scope. I tend to think this might be an adaptation versus a collection, but it's in the gray area and not certain. In this case, they are only violating the license by not mentioning the CC-BY-SA status of the original photos directly on their site.
      4. Or, they could be violating copyright slightly, and assuming they won't be sued. This happens a lot, I'd guess. It's also none of our concern. We only care about the copyright status of their additional work (the drawing plus the arrangement). There is no legal basis for assuming CC-BY-SA. If the original license holder complains or sues, then to rectify the situation they could 1) make their work CC-BY-SA, or 2) take it down, or 3) make some other private arrangement with the original license holder. We can only copy if it they choose option 1). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Clindberg Yes, they have separate private licenses, and the way I know is that I talked to them. I got a "wait a bit" reply when I wrote to them. I wish to wait till the end of this week - another day, while they consider OTRS text.
Yes - I agree with your other points, except the arrangement / adaption part which I know nothing about but it sounds plausible. Thanks for the heads up and I will think more about that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia screenshots with pictures, and licensing

I know that this has been already discused several times, but this DR (screenshot taken and uploaded by Me) called my attention, specially where Wine is Free software, and in very special, File:Kepler-62f with 62e as Morning Star.jpg is in the PD, and in even more special, my screenshot has been tagged as Copyvio (Speedy) first! (a clear violation, or at least, a misinterpretation and the extreme application of the Deletion Policy).

So, considering that the Spanish (and the most) Wikipedias rejected to the Fair Use, taking and uploading screenshots of the Wikipedia's Main Page (Portada in the Spanish Wikipedia) using Free browsers should not have problems. Also, considering that the main subject of these screenshots are the Browser itself, and the depicted elements in the Wikipedia screenshots may be considered just de minimis (even if them are free licensed due, again, the Spanish Wikipedia don't have Fair Use).

But, as you seen in the DR, I come back with the almost same question,

  • Is actually necessary to add a license tag for every picture depicted in non-Fair Use Wikipedia screenshots?
  • Could be considered them just de minimis?
  • Or the {{Wikipedia screenshot}} should be enough?
  • What says the Screenshots and other related Policies?

There is hundred of files in Category:Wikipedia screenshots where the main subject are the Browsers (or tools), so I think that adding a license tag for every element depicted is insane, and historically, almost no one has done that (just added {{Wikipedia screenshot}}). What do you think? --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You keep on misunderstanding copyright stuff and making a drama story out of it... --Diego Grez return fire 20:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discus this, please indicate what Policies regards that. We need concensus, not personal attacks.
I could agree with your POV and your reasoning, but not with your editions, specially with Speedy/Copyvio tags (notice that Natuur12 rejected your Speedy tag and converted that to a normal DR) --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Apart from 'policy' rules, there are also legal issues. Most files on Commons are under a licence which requires attribution, and the files need to satisfiy the attribution requirement. Problems:
  1. According to the terms of use, you agree that a link to the article is enough attribution when you contribute text. Let's say that you insert a link to the article on the file information page. If a user is later looking at the file information page, then fine: the article is one step away, so the attribution requirement is satisfied. Now let's say that you revert to the main page version and take a look at es:Wine. Now the attribution is two steps away: there's one step from es:Wine to the file information page and a second step from the file information page to the main page. The wording in the terms of use implies that linking is fine if the page only is one step away, but this is not necessarily the case if the page is several steps away.
  2. The main page consists of several templates. The authors who wrote the main page text didn't contribute the text directly to the main page but to some of those templates. Therefore, the wording in the terms of use might imply that you have to link to the templates instead. It is also very difficult to find the correct templates (where attribution is given in the history) if I want to find the templates which were used on a previous date. Therefore, linking to the main page might not provide sufficient attribution of the authors of the main page.
  3. The terms of use attribution licensing only applies to text but not to images or to content imported from external sources. Note that the terms of use is in addition to the licence used. When the terms of use are not applicable, a GNU or CC licence normally determines how the author is to be attributed. Check de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Archiv/2013/12#Fehlerhafte Anwendung von Lizenzen in der WP: a German court found that linking to the file information page on Wikipedia constituted insufficient attribution under GFDL. Version 4.0 of CC licences say something about linking to a file information page being permitted, but other licences are less clear.
Most licences also require you to specify under which licence the content is available. It's possible that some licences require you to put this information directly on the file information page. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, you're right. As Commons:Screenshots says «If the screenshot contains images or icons with free licenses with requirements, you have to honor them, such as by listing them and their authors and licenses, which may be other than Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike.»,
  • How that bold prhase means Mandatory?
  • and if actually mandatory, How can we enforce the uploaders to add proper licensing in already-uploaded screenshots (specially older ones)?
  • And technically talking, Could be a good idea to edit {{Wikimedia screenshot}} to add a parameter (or an array of ones) to link to file(s) depicted in the screenshot and add them to a category like Category:Wikimedia screenshots with Commmons files or anything else?
Finally, regarding this paragraph «The screenshots should have, at least, the date of them in order to go to Wikipedia:Portada, then, searching in the History for a version that matches with the date of the screenshot and the contents themselves, and then, follow the link of the depicted picture to the description in Commons, and then, found a valid license, should be enough», the should be enough is actually true? --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Just list all the licenses and authors of the files and things are done... --Diego Grez return fire 02:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I (now) agree with your reasoning, but not with your editions (specially with the Speedies). Therefore, I cloned the {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} to {{Wikimedia-screenshot/sandbox}}, and I added new parameters for special licensing, satisfying the problem that you raised. But, the actual problem is enforcing the other editors to update the licensing of their screenshots uploaded along more than 10 years ago. If you're too interested in licensing, could you help with this extensive job? --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope. --Diego Grez return fire 03:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
So, you don't have the time and disposition to help Commons rather than tagging files for Speedy (Administrators already warned to you and rejected your Speedy tags). There are hundred of another screenshots that you can tag... --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Probably because I've got other things to do IRL... --Diego Grez return fire 15:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
For that reason I'm proposing changes in {{Wikimedia-screenshot}}. Or linking to the depicted file(s) in question in the Source field should be enough? How can we consider these screenshots de minimis or not when the main subject is the Browser? --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
'De minimis' always depends, explicitly, on context. No image 'randomly' included in a Wikipedia screenshot can be de minimis, because you could always avoid the inclusion by taking a different screenshot that didn't include that image. Only in the context of taking a screenshot of something in particular (the main page, the top of a specific article, or the like) could de minimis apply. The inclusion of the copyrighted material needs to be unavoidable. Revent (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, for that reason I mentioned non-Fair use Wikipedias. For that, I updated the documentation in {{Wikimedia-screenshot/sandbox/doc}} and, at least, I'll merge the relevant changes in the Documentation in the main Documentation. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In summary

  • We need to discuss first how de minimis applies to Wikipedia screenshots, mainly, Web browser screenshots, before applying forcibly the Deletion Policy, and how deal with screenshots (specially very old ones) that lacks or proper licensing of every element depicted there, depending, again, how de minimis is applied.
  • I proposed changes to {{Wikimedia screenshot}} to add parameters in order to ease the placing the correct licensing of every file depicted in screenshots (and once again, depending how de minimis is applied). As an alternative. these information can be placed in the "Source" field in the {{Information}} template, and even easy, by using the Annotations feature as I made in File:Microsoft_Edge.png, should be that enough?. An option to upload Wikipedia screenshots can also be applied to the Upload Wizard and warn the user to add the additional licensing (but... de minimis).
  • I updated the {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} Documentation, to warn users to avoid uploading 'Fair-use Wikipedias screenshots with non-free pictures depicted there.

--Amitie 10g (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

PD-Seychelles

It would seem that the Seychelles have enacted a new copyright act in 2014.

The new law is apparently not retroactive, but it seems the terms of protection have been raised to 50 years. This means {{PD-Seychelles}} would need to be adjusted. Unfortunately that template is fully protected so I can't do this myself. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liliana-60: Changed to semi-protection. This template should also be changed to use the "autotranslate" format. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It's still fully protected for me. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liliana-60: Sorry. Should be OK now. Yann (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I adopted the change and hopefully everything should be fine now. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Invalid licence used?

File:TabethaSuzanneBoyajian.jpg was recently uploaded, quoting the CCA-3.0-Unported licence which is indeed used for files on the International Astronomical Union (IAU) website which are available for public use. See IAU copyright. This applies to media with a caption and credit on the IAU website and the conditions state that boththe credit must be reproduced verbatim. An example would be Ajit K. Kembhavi. It looks as if this applies to media located under http://www.iau.org/public/. Tabetha's image, though, was uploaded from http://www.iau.org/administration/ and appears nowhere with an IAU credit. I suspect individual members' pictures are uploaded with agreement that they can be used on the IAU site, but not released under the IAU public terms. This is the only picture uploaded from the administration area whereas there are lots from the public area . I recommend deleting it (with some regret I must admit). --Mirokado (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure It was published under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license as stated here (The IAU's copyright policy). I got the image from here so it should be publihed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license no? Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mirokado: Are you sure a caption is needed on the IAU site? Copyright policy states: All IAU still and footage are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I think that "IAU still and footage" refers to media in the public area, which is presented with a caption and credit. The copyright page says "The full image or footage credit must be presented in a clear and readable manner to all users, with the wording unaltered (for example: "IAU". The credit should not be hidden or disassociated from the image footage. Links should be active if the credit is online." The user page images don't have a credit, so these conditions don't apply and like any image grabbed from the web, the default is "not free". --Mirokado (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mirokado: That statement is a list of the conditions for use outside of the IAU site (as per the following statement found above your statement) The IAU images and footage may on a non-exclusive basis be reproduced without fee, on the conditions outlined below. Reproduce would mean use outside of the IAU site. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's see what others think... --Mirokado (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The IAU's copyright policy states that all IAU still are published under CCA-3.0-Unported. Due to this statement I would accualy expect a note or credit line stating otherwise for the image on the IAU's site. I mean it clearly states that all iau stills are CCA-3.0-Unported in the copyright policy, seeing as the image is uploaded to the IAU's site directly, I think it would be safe to assume that it is CCA-3.0-Unported. QuentinQuade (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

French FoP

I'm moving over some images from en Wikipedia and am having a hard time understanding the French rules on freedom of panorama regarding buildings. Is it all right to bring over images like en:File:Lascaux operations room.jpg that show relatively simple buildings, or should I not move them to Commons? Kelly (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, France does not allow FOP, unless the building is enough old (70 years after the death of the constructor/architect). If en:File:Lascaux operations room.jpg is not enough old, it should stay in the French Wikipedia. See Freedom of Panorama in France carefuly for more information. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
According to COM:FOP#France, there are some buildings which are below the threshold of originality, or at least the outside façade is. Unfortunately, the section doesn't contain any pictures of buildings which courts have found to be below the threshold of originality, so it is not easy to see how complex they are. It may be safer to keep all images on English Wikipedia unless you know the death year of the architect. Consider tagging the files with w:Template:FoP-USonly.
I'm also wondering if the court rulings listed in the section are up-to-date. For example, the section mentions a court ruling from 1966 where one of the requirement for copyright protection is that the building shouldn't be produced in series. However, there's also this court ruling where two pieces of furniture, obviously produced in series, were protected by copyright, and photographs of those pieces of furniture violated the copyright to the furniture. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

About NC

Hi,

Is https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ compatible with http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.fr ? The particular case is File:Wowwiki.jpg.

Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No, NC is not OK on commons. /Hangsna (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hangsna,
Thank you for the thread headline and your answer. I don't think that a screenshot of a copyrighted game can be put under NC anyway.
Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Which US license template should be used for an archival document?

I've uploaded a scan of a drawing from a book published in 1992 here File:Tour Omigna ASG Corsica 886-1.jpg. The drawing comes the Genoese archives and dates from around 1600. The artist is not known. The Cornell document states that for anonymous works, copyright lasts 120 years from the date of creation. Which US license template should I use on Commons for this document? Aa77zz (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we would assume that was published before 1923... {{PD-old-100-1923}} would be a combined tag which would work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
What does "published" mean in this context? Aa77zz (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
In the U.S., that is a very tortured term when it comes to copyright. Usually though it means it was distributed to people other than the copyright holder without a limited purpose in mind, and without restrictions on further distribution. Unless the work was kept in the original family though, we would generally assume it was published before that date. You could use a separate tag of {{PD-US-unpublished}} if you think that is more appropriate. It's virtually certain to be PD one way or another, unless 1992 was in fact the first-ever publication of that work (in which case there would be an EU issue because of their 25-year publication right). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed reply to my query. I'm going to follow your advice and use {{PD-old-100-1923}}. Aa77zz (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Exif copyright messages not preserved in thumbnails

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T20871

There's a problem with not preserving Exif in scaled down thumbnails; especially the attribution tag, which is necessary for correct use of CC-BY-SA images.

I've used the thumbnail https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Neues_Rathaus_Hannover_abends.jpg/330px-Neues_Rathaus_Hannover_abends.jpg of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neues_Rathaus_(Hannover)#/media/File:Neues_Rathaus_Hannover_abends.jpg on my web page, of course assuming that it is free content (it is), and that the attribution happens as recommended in the Exif field, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Exif "Information like "Mr. Foobar, May 2005, CC-BY-SA" should not be written directly in the image but in Exif fields, which is also technically superior." However, it turned out that the thumbnail does not contain any exif information whatsoever. The photographer complained that I didn't follow the rules of CC-SA-BY, and wants money; apparently he's using Wikipedia as scheme for that (I'm "Vorgang #00570"). I'm going to refuse to pay him, because it's not my fault. However, it's Wikimedia's fault, and that should be fixed.

In any case: Wikipedia is not correctly using his images (or any other CC-SA-BY image), either, at least not according to their own rules, where attribution shall be put into the Exif metadata, and not underneath the image or on the image.

Please fix your scaling software so it either preserves the attribution Exif tag of the original file, or creates a correct attribution tag according to your own rules.

BTW: The rules are perfect, thanks for them. This is just a technical problem. And of course a human problem, with this particular photographer ;-). Bernd Paysan (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You forget that Wikimedia content is for sharing and reuse, not just for Wikipedia. The description page might not be available or linked there, and some courts also said that linking to Wikipedia is not enough, because Wikipedia might be down (when was Wikipedia last down? But courts, you know...). Bernd Paysan (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

For that reason exists Web Archive, and the only file that actually matters is the original one; if you want to reduce the size, just download the original an edit with your preferred software.
Why should I waste my and your bandwidth and my time to edit it if a small thumbnail is already available? Sharing should be quick and easy. Bernd Paysan (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
...But anyway, I agree with your reasoning, and at 2015 ends, much of these technical issues regarding Exif metadata in thumbnails should be solved (notice that the problem is not with Wikimedia, but the Mediawiki and its developers, and actually with PHP and the available libraries). This could be discussed in Phabricator again, and the developers should do all the possible to let MediaWiki do the job as most efficiently as possible, but Community concensus is needed before opening an Issue at Phabricator. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Last time, this was discussed, the community seemed to support the Exif tag (most in favor), but the tools didn't. PEL should be able to do the necessary work (available for PHP 5, but not for PHP 4), it's really easy to use, both for copying the original Exif as well as for creating small Exif with only the strictly necessary values (which would probably be better for the thumbnail, no need to copy color profiles, camera identification, GPS tags and so on). Proper attribution however is a legal requirement, not just some option that is necessary only when the community consents. Bernd Paysan (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless any trusted user do that, I'll open a (new) thread in Phabricator. This should be discussed between the Community and the Developers. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Good, I'm waiting for the discussion, post the link here. Further actions that may be necessary is to make sure the uploader (for own work) approves on upload (with "paper trail", i.e. an entry in the data base that he ticked a box) that he accepts attribution in the Exif tag. This is in cases where the legislation may require different attribution, so that at least submission of "own work" can't argue later whether Exif is "proper attribution" according to CC or not. The photographer in question does argue about that, too. Bernd Paysan (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  Info: T111722 is one of the most recents issues opened (but just reffers to the older issue). This is a very technical issue, but I'll comment there to ask why the developers didn't corrected that already. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Developers are busy people, there's literally thousands of open bugs. I think most devs that care about this issue think of it as a nice to have, but ultimately not super-important-drop-what-you-are-doing. At least that's how I feel about it. Also, this kind of falls between the cracks of the organization of WMF teams (Multimedia is focused on front-end - e.g UploadWizard. Performance has an interest in removing metadata not adding more), so its probably up to volunteer effort. Bawolff (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I know and I understand very well the developers, but this issue comes from several years ago. The Community already decided, and in special, the German Laws and the CC-BY-4.0 (as Stefan2 mentioned bellow), attribution is required, and if Exif metadata contains that information, it should be preserved even in thumbnails. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Question CC-BY-SA 3.0 DE, the licence used for File:Neues Rathaus Hannover abends.jpg, states that "Die Verbreitung und das öffentliche Zeigen des Schutzgegenstandes oder auf ihm aufbauender Abwandlungen oder ihn enthaltender Sammelwerke ist Ihnen nur unter der Bedingung gestattet, dass Sie, vorbehaltlich etwaiger Mitteilungen im Sinne von Abschnitt 4.a), alle dazu gehörenden Rechtevermerke unberührt lassen." The uploader uploaded a copy of the file to a website (Wikimedia Commons) which both distributes copies of the file with copyright notice and copies of the file without copyright notice. Does this mean that you are not allowed to remove the copyright notice yourself, but that you are free to ignore the copyright notice if you download a copy directly from Wikimedia Commons where the copyright notice isn't included?
User:Amitie 10g: According to de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Archiv/2013/12#Fehlerhafte Anwendung von Lizenzen in der WP, linking to the file information page on Wikipedia does not constitute sufficient attribution under GFDL according to German courts. Whether it constitutes sufficient attribution or not under other licences might be untested, but version 4.0 of all Creative Commons licences explicitly say something about linking to pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: are you reffering to File transfers from de.Wikipedia (where there is a bug in CommonsHelper), or this Issue (in Phabricator) in specific? --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
From what I have understood, someone took a file on Commons (File:1986 Ulf Fink 800.jpg), posted it to an external website and provided attribution by linking to the file information page on Wikipedia, and then the photographer sued and the court ruled that the attribution was insufficient and that the photographer had the right to compensation. However, it is very difficult to read the German text. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Having the info in EXIF is good, but it's YOUR responsibility to actually make the appropriate attribution and license statement (and verify it's correctness), whenever you use the image. Commons:Exif is advice to authors and says nothing for re-users, who should instead read Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia. Which is tough to find btw... But as Commons:Licensing shows, this website cares more about uploaders than about reusers. Also proven by the fact that we still allow GFDL. Can thing in the technology be improved ? Sure, they always can, but that would not have saved u in this case.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to say Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia is hard to find. Unless you turn it off, the Stockphoto gadget places a prominent link to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia next to the preview on every File page on Commons (see File:Wikimedia Commons - Stockphoto gadget.png for an example screenshot). For logged out users it is linked from "Information about reusing" to the right of the preview image on File pages with the other reuse tools. For logged in users it is linked from "Information" in the reuse tool ribbon above the preview image on File pages. Perhaps you overlooked it because you are so used to seeing it? If you're not seeing it, perhaps report a bug? —RP88 (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The original post above contains a link to the Media Viewer, which doesn't include any links to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Also, the gadget is not used by other Wikimedia projects, so you do not see any links when viewing the file information page page on other projects (for example, de:File:Neues Rathaus Hannover abends.jpg). --Stefan2 (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A User uploaded this image File:USA_Today_BTTF_Logo.svg. The description is logo of USA Today's Back to the Future edition. The person stated that it is from the Front page of USA Today (it is no longer there on the website, but it is true.)

The rationale is "simple geometric shapes and/or text" which I have some doubt. In addition, it was first used in the movie so the originally in the logo might not even apply. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The logo is basically a simple text stricken through. Nothing creative. Ruslik (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your doubts SYSS Mouse, I think the stylized globe that is part of the logo is sufficient to push the logo above the threshold of originality in the U.S., particularly since the Omega globe was successfully registered (VAu000574660). —RP88 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The "Omega globe" crosses the threshold of originality... But (from Commons:Threshold of originality) the Best Western sign does not? The Avenue of the Saints logo does not? The Bruce Lee core symbol does not? At least all of these utilize more than two colors. The "Arrows" sign, with script font and a series of dashes, does not? Where is the creativity in the Omega globe that is claimed to cross this threshold? Personally, I can see no creativity in this USA Today logo that exceeds than the already-declined-as-having-insufficient-originality items I just mentioned. Which is starting to make me thing something somewhere is bogus... KDS4444 (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the "Omega globe" was recognized as copyrightable by both the U.S. Copyright Office as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I think you'd find it enlightening if you read the rejection decisions of the U.S. Copyright Office for each of the other logos you mention. For example, the "Best Western sign" was found to be below TOO because it consisted of a single pentagon and some text (they ruled the "crown" was a fancy letter "W"). Similarly, the "Avenue of the Saints logo" was found to consist of a rectangular shape, text, and a single fleur-de-lis which they ruled was minor variation of a public domain symbol (although they acknowledged that other variations of a fleur-de-lis might be protectable). The USA Today "Back to the Future" logo consists of text, a rectangular shape, and a complex globe constructed from a circle and approximately 50 lines of varying thickness. While the text is not protectable, I think the selection and arrangement of more than 50 simple shapes is well above COM:TOO in the U.S. —RP88 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Damn. Them justices sho' do like splittin' hairs, don't they? Given your above reasoning, I suppose a copyright claim might be sustainable (at least, for the USA Today logo... But the Omega globe?? What, did they argue that "while the Greek letter omega and the five-pointed star are prima facie below or outside of possible copyright protection, their placement along the implied surface of a three-dimensional sphere represents genuine artistic creativity and originality, hence here is your ©"?? Or wait... I was joking but... is that exactly what was argued?). KDS4444 (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Although in this case the copyright holder is Universal Studio, not USA Today. This is the logo used in the movie and the newspaper is using it under fair use. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
KDS4444, your guess is good as mine, since the U.S. Copyright Office only explains its decisions when they reject a copyright registration. We know the U.S. Copyright office rejects registrations that consist of only a small number of simple shapes or other public domain symbols (after eliminating any short phrases). The "Arrows" sign you mention above was rejected because they found it to consist only of arrangement of four angled lines forming an arrow and some text. The Bruce Lee core symbol was rejected for consisting of arrangement of one (public domain) symbol, two arrows, and some text. So maybe the fact that the logos you mentioned were rejected while the "Omega globe" (which looks to consist of a circle, two ellipses, two stars, and three omega symbols) was accepted is a hint that COM:TOO in the U.S. for logos consisting of the selection and arrangement of simple shapes is above four but below eight. —RP88 (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
And this information is maintained as some sort of secret? C'est incroyable! (pour moi) KDS4444 (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW I wouldn’t consider the lines on the globe to be separate elements, but all taken together to constitute a two-tone shading that emulates the effect of a linear halftone screen, or perhaps an engraver’s hatching.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
That is certainly a reasonable interpretation, but I don't think it matters. The decision in Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. found that "mezzotint" copies of public domain paintings could be protected by copyright, since the process involved making artistic interpretations and the results were a distinguishable variation from the original public domain work. Suppose we assume for a moment that this is indeed a halftone. If the artist made creative choices in how to emulate the effect of a linear halftone screen, the resulting work would be protectable, even if based on a public domain globe. We don't know if there was a underlying public domain globe or if the artist created an original globe. Similarly, we also don't know if the emulated half-tone effect is an original creation, or the result of upsizing the output of a mechanical half-toning algorithm. To interpret the logo's globe as public domain under this theory would require us to identify an underlying public domain globe (or a minor variation thereof) and show that the half-toning appearance was not an artistic interpretation but instead the result of an uncreative process. Given what we currently know, I think this strays too far from COM:PRP. —RP88 (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Engravings are copyrightable too, over and above the original picture. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn’t mean to contest the originality (there’s also the orientation of the globe and the precise manner in which the continents are drawn), just the count of elements, which I thought exaggerated.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sent to deletion. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

copyright questions

I have uploaded the following images on Wikimedia Commons: Patrik Skantze 2012.jpg Margareta Skantze 2006.jpg W Fabriken 2006.jpg I hereby affirm that these photographs are my own work and that I, Patrik Skantze, am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the above mentioned images. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

I have also uploaded the following images on Wikimedia Commons: Lars-Olof Skantze.jpg Hugo Skantze 1917.jpg Björn-Orvar Skantze 1970.jpg W Fabriken 1976.jpg Fabriken 1960.jpg These Swedish photographs are in the public domain because the following applies: The work is non-artistic (journalistic, …) and has been created before 1969. I hereby affirm that I, Patrik Skantze, am the owner of the above mentioned images. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

I have also uploaded the following images on Wikimedia Commons: W Fabriken 1936.jpg W Fabriken 1906.jpg W Fabriken 1886.jpg These Swedish photographs are in the public domain because the following applies: The photographers are not known, and cannot be traced, and the work has been created before 1944. I hereby affirm that I, Patrik Skantze, am the owner of the above mentioned images. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

My question is: What shall I do in order for these images to remain on Wikimedia Commons and prevent them from being deleted? Very thankful if you can help me out! Patrik Skantze (user name BPSkantze) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPSkantze (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can not be the author of such old images unless you are more than 120 years old. Ruslik (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Ruskin,

As I wrote in the above commentary I do not claim to be the author of the pictures produced prior to 1969. I made a faulty registration when had them I registered for Wikimedia Commons. As I don’t know how to make a proper registration I am asking for help. The original photos are to be found in my archive and the information about who is the author of them is lost. I am convinced that these photos are of public interest and that no one could have any objection to them being published and used in different circumstances. Please give advise me how I should have them registered in a proper way on Wikimedia Commons. Patrik Skantze — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPSkantze (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you took the photographs, or inherited the copyright from the photographer, then you could license them ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} appears to be the license you want). If they are public domain in the country of first publication, then they should be marked that way -- if first published in Sweden, and they conform to {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, then use that tag. There is nothing to be licensed with Creative Commons. File:W Fabriken 1886.jpg, File:W Fabriken 1906.jpg, and File:W Fabriken 1936.jpg at the very least however are artworks, not photographs, so they would not qualify for that tag. The terms on those would be 70 years after the author's death, or 70 years after publication if the works are anonymous (i.e. the author has never been identified). Simply not knowing who the author is now may not be the same thing, unless you know the publication history and know that the author was not identified, and the works are not signed. But {{Anonymous-EU}} would be the tag to use if they are truly anonymous. Where do those works come from? File:W Fabriken 1936.jpg however, even if anonymous, would have been protected in Sweden in 1996 thus its U.S. copyright would have been restored, and would be valid until 2032, so that one should be deleted -- when using Anonymous-EU, you need to show that they also qualify for {{PD-1996}}, and it's not possible for a Swedish anonymous work created in 1936 to qualify. I can't see them now, but just by their titles it would seem as though Björn-Orvar Skantze 1970.jpg and W Fabriken 1976.jpg were both created after 1969 and therefore would not qualify for the photo tag either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@BPSkantze: @Clindberg: FYI, the license templates in Category:License tags for transferred copyright exist for such cases... they indicate that the image is licensed by the heirs, and not the original creator. Revent (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
(Note that just applies to the 'inherited the copyright', of course... I did not read the repeated boilerplate in the original message far enough to realize he wasn't specifically asking about 'inherited' copyrights. I just noticed CL mentioning 'inherited' ones, but then only linking the normal versions) Revent (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Are these (& others) from Glasgow Museums ok?

File:Figure of a Luohan from the Chenghua period..JPG, File:Assyrian Royal Attendant from Nimrud, Mesopotamia..JPG and others uploaded by the same person. The Glasgow Museums' website[9] says "You must get permission to draw, photograph or make video recordings for personal use in any of our venues or stores. Photography, without the use of tripods, is usually permitted. But due to the sensitive nature of many of our exhibits, and the possible damaging effects of flash photography, permission must be sought before hand. Permission forms are available from all our museums and must be completed before undertaking any of the above." Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This are examples of Non-copyright_restrictions. Ruslik (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Funnily enough I did take several photographs in Glasgow museums recently, but I will save those photographs until the temporary exhibition in question has closed. I asked if it was okay to take photos and was told to go right ahead, no worries, take as many as I liked. Mabalu (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all. Doug Weller (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
If the works of a temporary exhibit are still under copyright themselves, photographs of them may be derivative works. The objects in question for the mentioned images appear to be very very old, so they would not have any copyright issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/10&oldid=313903200"