Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/12

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright

File:Stop watching us 0418.JPG

Is the banner copyrightable, even when it consists of elements that may be free to use? --George Ho (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

How can I obtain a permission of posting a image that was originally found in one of the thesis

To whom it may concern,

Could someone please tell me how can I obtain a permission of posting a image that was originally found in one of the thesis - "What kinds of perceptions and daily learning behaviors promote students' use of diagrams in mathematics problem solving?" This research paper was conducted by Yuri Uesakaa, Emmanuel Manalob, Shinichi Ichikawac.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny.yip320 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 02 December 2015 (UTC)

The Learning and Instruction journal claims to support open access but apparently this is only valid for newer issues. I'm afraid that the article from 2007 you are referring to is non-free and copyrighted, so you cannot simply use the images published there. If you don't plan to upload something at Commons, you can however purchase a licence for certain types of re-use at Copyright.com which is the licencing platform for content from a lot of academic journals. They tend to charge hefty fees though. De728631 (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

How can i obtain permission of posting an image from this book?

Can someone please kindly tell me whether an image from “Nagel, N.G., and C.C. Swingen. "Students' Explanations of Place Value in Addition and Subtraction" Teaching Children Mathematics 5 (November 1998): 164-170” is allowed posting on the wikibook? If yes, how can I obtain the permission from the author? Thank you in advance!

This is essentially the same situation as with your other question above. Unless this article has been spefically published under a free licence like Creative Commons with all opportunities for making derivatives and commercial re-use you can't upload any images or other content to Commons. By default such publications are copyrighted and may not be re-used unless the copyright holder grants a licence. "Students' Explanations of Place Value in Addition and Subtraction" is not a stand-alone book either but an article from the non-free journal Teaching Children Mathematics so there is practically no way for getting a universal permission without paying a fee. De728631 (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of Iran.svg

Is this image allowed in Wikimedia Commons? Although not qualified as trademark, the elements may pass threshold of originality in Iran. Also, the designer might be presumably still alive. --George Ho (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  •   Question: Are the official emblem of countries copyright protected? And yes, Hamid Nadimi is still alive, but the emblem is even an Unicode character, U+262B (that is in the PD). The rest of the flag is clearly bellow the TOO. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
You mean Persian writing or some sort? --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
In general, for flags, we don't want to copy graphics from external websites, but if the uploader did the graphic work themselves, they should be fine. There should not be a general copyright on the design of governmental flags. They are typically specified in law anyways, which would be PD-EdictGov in the United States. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Rodrigo.Argenton repeated reverted my changing licensing of the flag. {{PD-Iran}} doesn't mention that flags are in the public domain. --George Ho (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Specific drawings of flags might can very easily copyright, depending on the facts and the country. Might even be a non-visual aspect if they hand-coded the SVG, for example. This is why we don't take flag graphics off the net. If there is a free license given on a user-created graphic, leave it. PD tags (especially PD-ineligible type tags) are inherently based on national law and can vary greatly, meaning there could be some jurisdictions where use is not OK if we are relying on a law only applicable elsewhere, but a free license makes it much more likely to be usable globally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
"doesn't mention that flags are in the public domain." >> "This work is now in the public domain in Iran"; nothing more to add. -- RTA 06:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
PD-Iran says that, to make a work free to use, an author must be deceased in 1980 or before or more than fifty years ago. The author of the flag may be still alive. --George Ho (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Doing the think that you are doing don't solve the case either. Find the Iranian law about the flag, and stop the non sense things, solve the case, don't create problems. Got it? -- RTA 07:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Here you go, RTA. Copyright law may imply that the flag is one of artistic works; trademark law does not qualify the flag as eligible for trademark. However, copyright and trademark are not the same. The flag might still meet threshold of originality in Iran. --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hunf, I'm getting tired of this talk, but countries normally have specific for flags, and art that government will use.
If you are accusing that something is wrong, you should prove that, not the accused, so try to find evidences that we are wrong, and bring the correct law, and normally even embassies gives this kind of information.
-- RTA 08:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
PD-Iran says rights transferred to a legal person (such as the government) last 30 years from publication. The design is PD-ineligible in the US (regardless of lack of copyright treaties), as everything on there is basically letters (the central emblem is stylized letters, but still letters). But really, the copyright of the design of a national flag is generally a red herring anyways -- we care about who drew the specific graphic, if there is copyright eligibility on that. Flags are often defined precisely enough that there is no separation between the idea and the expression, thus there is no copyright (the merger doctrine). They are PD-EdictGov even if not. The person who made the SVG might have a copyright themselves, but beyond that, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The situation is analogous to Commons:Coat of arms -- for some flags, there can be enough variation in each different depiction to hold a copyright, and SVGs have further possibilities (there can be many ways to code them even though the resulting image is identical). I wouldn't waste much time on the designer of the flag and trying to correlate that to copyright. Rather, the status should be on the person who made the graphic. If they think it's PD, then maybe PD-author is better. Or, just leave it alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

w:en:File:Wyndham_Hotels & Resorts.svg and the Threshold of originality

Is this logo actually bellow the Threshold of originality? Is eligible to be moved to Commons? Please leave your opinions. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that the USA law applies, it may well be below the threshold of originality. Ruslik (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The standard of comparison is the Best Western logo: File:Best Western logo.svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

weird EXIF data!

Hi friends. I have a problem to uploading free images from http://www.ypa.ir/. Although all content of the website are under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, there in a weird exif data for every picture: © 2010 Michael Nagle! However most pictures of the website, have taken after 2010. (example) I guess this is a technical problem and there is a logic explain to this.(more information in the exif data)

Please help me. Thank you.Saman-1984 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That is weird indeed. It seems to be a general problem for images from this website, see also File:IRIA dune bugys parading in front of highest-ranking officers of Iran.jpg or File:Meeting of the heads of state at the 16th summit of the NAM (1).jpg. The latter image has some EXIF information "Date and time of digitizing: 00:37, 21 November 2015" while the photo itself was allegedly taken in 2012. It appears that some reprocessing has been done there with a template using the Michael Nagle caption and credit. De728631 (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi again @De728631: . Thank you for your attention. Finally, what do we do? A user tagged my uploads as vio pictures and wants delete them. Just an administrator (like your) can remove the nomination templates. Please help me to pass the case and guide me for next uploads.(The website is like a treasure of pictures about Iran subjects) Thank you again.Saman-1984 (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it will be difficult to handle this case without a clear explanation how and/or why the (C) info has been added either from Michael Nagle or from the site administrator(s). If you receive such explanation, it can be handled in an OTRS ticket. Note, that deleted images can be restored later if their copyright status is clear. Ankry (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Ankry is right. To be on the safe side we should delete these images. They can be restored anytime if the EXIF mystery has been solved. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

copyright in one european country affects other countries how?

there was a discussion about the unclear stautus of the internationale copyright status, so that it could have 70 years + wartime extensions. if this was so, what does this mean in terms of payment to play the internationale? if you play it in germany do you pay? if you play it in russia do you pay? User:Clindberg? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those would only apply in France. Some countries apply the w:rule of the shorter term, and there are a number of countries which would apply their own terms regardless of what France does, but I'm not sure there are any that apply the rule of the longer term, so I think this would be expired basically everywhere else (there are 80pma countries but I think that is the longest actually existing term right now). I don't think there is anything in the EU directive which would force other EU countries to protect it to France's limit, but that's about the only chance I could think of. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Uploading my own artwork that "looks like" a copyrighted work

This must have been asked so many times but I cannot easily find any guidance on it. If I make my own drawing which happens to closely resemble some organization's logo, coat of arms, etc. (and is more than just a bit of text and simple shapes), does this breach their copyright? I have seen a few like this on the Commons and am thinking of doing the same with an image I want to put in a userbox (i.e. no "fair use" allowed). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is "substantially similar" to the expression which exists in the original, then yes it's still a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks, I won't do that then. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My image being used on here

I am not sure if this is the place for this, but the image located at File:Modern lcms confessional.jpg is mine and has been wrongly taken from site [1]. I would like to request its removal, it does not even represent the branch of church it is claimed to represent on this site and it is my image. Rgwxgsdws (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. The image is File:Modern lcms confessional.jpg, and was uploaded by en:User:Shark96z at the English Wikipedia in December 2009. The resolution is higher than the source you give, so that was not the direct source. In looking around though, I do see a source here from December 2007, so the image definitely existed on the Internet before the Wikipedia upload, and it does look suspicious. There was likely an earlier common source for those. Anyways, it looks like it should be deleted here regardless. Just checking some of the user's other uploads, there appear to be further issues -- en:File:Brookstone private school.jpg looks like it comes from here, and en:File:Reds Chipper First Base.jpg looks like an iPhone capture of a TV screen image. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Modern lcms confessional.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I also requested deletion of the other 2 images. Yann (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Those were the only three images of that user's uploads that I spot checked -- there are probably others. Actually, looks like a whole bunch of his images have been transferred to Commons... I just nominated File:Georgia (US state) welcome sign.jpg but almost all the others are small with no EXIF. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

How do I make sure permission sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org is verified before pictures are taken down?

There is a discussion on this topic in the Wikipedia Teahouse. If you can contribute, please respond there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Is is possible to have these images under commons?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freddie_Gray.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baltimore_Police_officers_charged_in_Freddie_Gray's_homicide.jpg --AnnaMariaKoshka (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. They are non-free and used on :en only under the U.S. fair-use rationale, which is not applicable to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for you response! :)
What should be changed to make it possible to use it under commons? The authors of these images should said "we allow to do this.."?
Maybe it is some kind of "U.S. fair-use rationale" alternative for commons? --AnnaMariaKoshka (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it is even legally not possible, as fair-use allows only "use" (under certain conditions); on Commons we host images, but do not use them. See Commons:Fair use. --Túrelio (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok :) --AnnaMariaKoshka (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Licensing for uploaded photos

Dear helpers,

I got some toubles with the wrong licensing of uploaded photos.

Could you please kindly advise:

1) what license I should indicate, if an image has been scaned from a book and an original author of the image is unkown?

2) what licence should be indicated, if an image has been taken from an outside web-site and an original author is unkown?

3) what license should be indicated, if the image has been taken from a family archive (provided by heirs)? If I am a heir personally?

Your advice is very appreciated.

If the image is very old (approximately more than 100 years) it is likely in the public domain and you should use {{Pd-old}}. In any other case it is probably still copyrighted and can be uploaded here only with a permission of the author or their heirs. However, to answer your questions precisely we will need to know what images you are talking about. Ruslik (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

LandsatLook Viewer

Greetings,

so I've been lately searching for images to use on the Wikipedias on LandsatLook Viewer, a service that displays images made by the Landsat satellites. By my understanding these images fall under the "US government work" rules, i.e not copyrightable. However, this service also includes a "background" (visible if one sets the image transparency to "off" for example) that appears to be linked to an "Earthstar Geographics" group, presumably a contractor. Assuming that the imagery produced by the contractor is not public domain or otherwise COM:L compatible, is there a way to make sure that only truly PD imagery can be downloaded from there (and then uploaded to Commons)?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Footer states that "Reproduction of materials available on this site is allowed only if the source is mentioned"

Hi. How should I go about licensing files while uploading to Commons, when the source site has the following message in the footer: "Reproduction of materials available on this site is allowed only if the source is mentioned"?

  1. Do I interpret this text as CC-BY-SA-4.0 and use the template?
  2. Do I need to use a custom license I'm not aware of?

The site in question is http://www.monument.sit.md - it hosts info and photos on architectural monuments in Chișinău, Moldova. Thank you in advance for your answers. //  Gikü  said  done  Tuesday, 8 December 2015 22:08 (UTC)

Whm, if no further copyright noticies, the phrase Reproduction of materials available on this site is allowed only if the source is mentioned mention parts of the CC-BY license. But in absense of a explicit license rather than a copyright notice ('Copyright ©' but not 'All rights reserved', nor 'commercial ussage restrictions'), {{PD-author}} seems better; this, unless the works is enough old and already in the PD, this removes the obligation to link to the source site. Just add the source and the proper authorship and license tag. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
PD-author doesn't apply, because if there is an obligation to mention the source, it's not PD. Finnusertop (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's an acceptable permission for Commons, as the statement doesn't say whether derivative works and commercial use is allowed. Kelly (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

An important approach, for files already in the PD, that copyright notice should just be ignored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Person familiar with Russian copyright law

If there is someone familiar enough with Russian copyright law, I would appreciate a voice at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kabota 13. Also welcome is anyone familiar with copyright law enough to comment on the case. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual about Russian copyright law to require a special expertise especially in this relatively straightforward case. Ruslik (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-RO-photo}}

Last February, User:השואה made this edit to the {{PD-RO-photo}} asserting PD status in the US, rather than only Romania. This directly contradicts COM:Subsisting copyright. I almost reverted without discussion, but considering the sensitivity of all URAA and similar discussions, thought I'd ask for wider input first. Storkk (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, that change is kind of inexplicable. If you revert the change, editors should instead be encouraged to use {{PD-RO-photo}}{{PD-1996}}, {{PD-RO-photo}}{{PD-1923}}, etc. as appropriate. —RP88 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like someone thought the tag was meant to be used for works which are PD in both Romania and the United States, i.e. a combined tag, which probably was not intended. Romanian laws happen to match up pretty well with the URAA because of their law change in 1996, which was probably the source of the confusion. But, that law change means basically that almost any work PD in Romania today is also PD in the United States -- the main exceptions would be isolated photos first published from March 1, 1989 through 1990 (which did not lose US copyright due to lack of notice) and any previous work which had copyright notice and (if necessary) was renewed with the U.S. Copyright Office. The example on COM:Subsisting copyright just so happens to be on the narrow 1990 example of a photo, but that will be the exception instead of the rule. If we note the 1989 date on the tag, then it could be a combined tag (at least for URAA). That might be a more useful tag since virtually all files that use it would also be PD-URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It is probably very uncommon for a Romanian copyright holder to submit a copyright renewal to the United States Copyright Office, but what about copyright notices? It's very easy to add a copyright notice, and there is a risk that a lot of publications had a copyright notice. I think that it is risky to use {{PD-RO-photo}} for post-1963 photos without evidence that the publication was without a notice.
Also, what is 'issuance' in the template? Creation or publication? If it is creation, then there is a big issue with Commons:Subsisting copyright with respect to unpublished photographs. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the tag would at most be a combined tag for noting that a work was PD in Romania on the URAA date, and not anything about following other US formalities. Works with copyright notice and unpublished works could still be issues in the US, absolutely. I probably shouldn't say "almost any work", but rather, almost any work published without copyright notice before 1989 which is PD in Romania would also be PD in the US. It's probably fine to just revert the edit, though possibly note that such works would not be restored through the URAA. We could well still need another US copyright tag though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Request OK on 1950 press photo

Can someone review this press image for upload? It's dated 1950, no notice, and shows the back as coming from Fotofest. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. There is a partially covered stamp that, looking at other photos online[2], says "LICENSE TO REPRODUCE WITH COPYRIGHT NOTICE GRANTED NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES AND OTHER PERIODICALS." Odd that they would be aware of a copyright notice then forget to add one to that copy. But, sure looks like that copy was distributed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. --Light show (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:ISO 7010 safety signs (vector drawings)

I'd like to draw your attention to be DR mentioned above. This is about the ISO 7010 icons (examples above). I think it would be kind of disastrous if we would have to delete those. --Sebari (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Uploading photo's for which I have permission to do so

Hi,

Sorry in advance if the answer to this question can be found here, I couldn't find it: can I upload pictures of which I have the (written) permission to do so from the photographer?

What kind of permission do you have? Ruslik (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We (Dutch Olympic and Paralympic Committee) paid the photographer to make professional photo's of a couple of athletes, for basicly everybody to use for promotional purposes, like their websites, with articles in media and Wikipedia. It was the main purpose of the photoshoot: to help these athletes promote them selves with professional photography. We've been working with this photographer for years, she approves of the free of rights usage of her material. Schild055 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Schild055, take a look at Commons:OTRS for the steps needed to verify a third-party license. In particular, follow the steps at Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_not_the_copyright_holder, Basically,
  1. Agree on a license for the photos with your photographer.
  2. Upload your photos to Commons using the Copyright license that you and your photographer have agreed upon. Edit the licensing section of the files to add {{subst:OP}}, which will automatically add a dated note that the permission for the license is awaiting verification.
  3. Ask your photographer to forward the correspondence in which you agreed upon a license along with a statement of permission and a link to files you uploaded to Commons to permissions-commons wikimedia.org. You can find an example statement of permission at Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. Ideally your photographer should contact OTRS from an e-mail address that is readily identified as belonging to your photographer.
—RP88 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. But I think I'll just ask her to make her own account on Wikipedia and let her upload the photos, being the maker of the photos. Isn't that the quickest way to get them online? Schild055 (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If the photos been previously published elsewhere without a free license, we're going to want permission via COM:OTRS anyways. See Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F. If she creates her own account, she could choose to follow steps similar to the ones I listed above. Alternatively, if she would like to avoid the hurdle of sending permission statements for photos previously published elsewhere, she could contact OTRS to authenticate that her Commons account is authorized to license her works. —RP88 (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for the info. That's way too much work for just a few photos I want to upload. I'm just going to use some of my own pictures. Of lesser quality uñfortunately, but still usable. Schild055 (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

1910 Pastel Portrait of Candace Wheeler

I think -- but am not certain --that a pastel portrait of Candace Wheeler executed in 1910 by her daughter Dora Wheeler Keith is now public domain. It was created before 1923, suggesting it is now public domain. The portrait appears in various places online without credit, and in the book "Candace Wheeler, The Art and Enterprise of American Design" (Metropolitain Museum of Art 2001)(page 250). The 2001 Metropolitan Museum of Art catalog that published the portrait has itself been released into the public domain here. HOWEVER--the book credits the portrait to a private collection. So. Can I consider this portrait public domain and upload it to Commons and use it on the Cadance Wheeler Wikipedia article? If so, should I credit the private collection which would mean publishing the names of Mr. and Mrs. x online on Wikipedia? ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 15:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Being painted in 1910 does not necessarily mean published -- and it's the publication date which is most important here. At least, the date of publication with permission of the copyright owners (being in a book without such permission means it was not legally published). I really don't see how that Metropolitan Museum of Art catalog is PD -- it has an explicit 2001 copyright notice in the book, and the upload to the Internet Archive does not mention a license nor does it have any indication on how public domain status came about. But, the MMA would have nothing to do with the copyright on the painting itself. The collection it comes from does not sound related to the Wheeler or Keith family, and are not mentioned in the acknowledgements near the front as being relatives. If they simply own the item, they may not own the copyright, in which case they may not be able to give legal permission to publish. But, if that catalog was somehow the first publication, and that was done with the permission of the copyright holders of the book, that work is still under copyright until 2048, under a provision that pre-1978 works which had never been published were first published between 1978 and 2002 get an extended copyright. If the work had been published earlier, then more normal copyright rules would apply (would need copyright notice, and if before 1964, a copyright renewal). If the work had not been legally published by 2003, then the term became 70pma on that date, which expired in 2011. So... there is a good chance it's PD, but I'm not sure it's enough to tell from the information given. Is there anything else known about the work, in particular any publications? The current owners had to obtain it somehow, which might have been publication then, and if they didn't obtain the copyright as well then they could not give legal permission to the MMA in 2001. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time for an extended exegesis. The Metropolitan Museum of Art ("MMA") catalog reproduction would have been "by permission of the (private) owners." The painting might be public domain on a public museum wall with infinite reproductions like the Mona Lisa. But this hangs on somebody's private wall, and the catalog is the first known reproduction. I will try to find and contact the owners. Your excellent analysis has clarified the task and I thank you for it.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 17:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Flickr photo ID [check license]

Hi! I tried to verify the copyright status (license) of http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/354642089_3eb1c3dde1_o.jpg (last modified: 12.01.2007, exif available: taken on 2007-01-09 20:11:26), but...

  • FileInfo fails (invalid ID)
  • Flickr photo.gne fails (page not found). Normally, if no more details are retrievable, the Flickr photo is set by Flickr user to private.
  • Flickr API search (using UNIX timestamps 2007-01-09 20:11:00 to 2007-01-09 20:12:00) fails --> I know that at Flickr UNIX timestamps sometimes causes some mysterious results... the result list here appears to be only recognize photos taken on 10.01.2007.
  • Google gives only results to the embedded image. And (so far I could check) none of the pages gives further details to the Flickr photo.

Any further tips/hints available? Thx in advance. Gunnex (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Next please.   Rodrigolopes (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Rodrigolopes found it via Google Reverse Image Search which I obviously also tried:
  • Rodrigolopes: google.com.br (4 pages of results, Flickr photo identifiable via page 3 [flickrhivemind.net] or via page 4 [flickriver.com])
  • Me: google.de (only 2 pages of results)
Strange... Gunnex (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Template for when the uploader is the subject of the photo

I often see uploads from new users such as File:Fredrick Brennan drives a boat.jpg that claim ownership of a photo even though they are the subject and clearly not the photographer. Sometimes this difference is negligible, but I know that if such a photo were submitted by the individual to OTRS, the queue would ask them to clarify the photographer copyright/ownership. Do we have tags for the image page and/or user talk page templates catered to this specific situation? Because I would think it common enough to warrant such templates. czar 15:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK there is only {{No selfies}} for the uploader's talk page that informs them about possible out-of-scope content. But it doesn't point at the copyright situation. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Czar When there is doubt that the copyright claim is in order then OTRS confirmation is used. This comes up routinely when subjects of biographies provide photos of themselves and claim also to be the copyright holder. Beyond OTRS I know of no template. It happens so much that it would be interesting to track the frequency with a template. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Right, I'm looking for a template that says, "This photo is credited as your own work, but do not appear to be the photographer, who is the copyright holder. Please have the photographer register their consent with permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, etc." as both a tag for the file page and a canned notice for the user talk page. If it doesn't exist, we should consider making one. Such a template would be a little bit more specific than the current "we need permission from the stated copyright holder" particular to the case of the uploader claiming authorship but likely unaware of this copyright nuance that Commons upholds. czar 18:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright on toys?

Can someone remind me of thought and practices regarding copyright of toys? Are toys artistic sculptures? They are not quite practical tools or products, and seem sort of like art.

Consider toy cars particularly - cars seem to not have a copyrighted design. What about the shape of toy cars? Is this also not copyrightable, and can be photographed and not treated as a sculpture? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Toy models of cars have got registered for copyright. So have teddy bears.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
COM:TOYS Finnusertop (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Proper license for WIPO (UN agency) website screenshot

  • They offer a non-standard license that has some problems. In particular: "The user must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other action in relation to the content published on this site that would be prejudicial to the reputation of WIPO. Adaptations/translations/derivatives should not carry any WIPO official emblem or logo" sets restrictions on derivatives. Someone with experience with non-standard licenses should take a look at this. Finnusertop (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Those type of restrictions are generally about moral rights, a separate topic from copyright. They explicitly allow adaptation (derivative works) earlier in their statement. That type of reputation-based restriction is pretty standard (and exists in many copyright laws, in the moral rights area). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I think {{Attribution}} is the right license, given that statement. If there are going to be many documents for that license, a separate template might make sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

User:DeFly94

Hi, the aforementiond user appears to have uploaded several photos of World-War II era Italian hand grenades in the last couple days, which he has marked as his own work, but seem to have been copied from here: [3]. One image has already been flagged for speedy deletion, and I suppose the rest should be treated the same way? Cheers, --Amendola90 (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Is the Bugatti logo {{PD-textlogo}}? See en:File:Bugatti logo.svg and File:Bugatti Veyron (4664325064).jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No. The DR should not have been closed after being open for 60 seconds, if you were uncertain of the rationale. Ping @Rodrigo.Argenton: as an interested party. --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Fæ: I know that you like to oppose systematically what I say or I do. I ask for a rationale and argumentated opinion, not your rant. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Rant? Your comment is bizarre and twists this into an argument rather than sticking to the facts.
Anyone that cares to check through my contributions can see that I systematically avoid you after your aggressive behaviour to me on IRC several months ago, in fact I have hardly been near IRC since that personal nastiness. At the same time I see your actions on my uploads, and I never comment or respond; this quiet avoidance has never been mutual. I comment here as this was raised elsewhere where I advised on the badly closed DR.
Addendum Struck my "no", I don't want to be aggressively griefed by Yann for the next five years. I have better things to concentrate on than his personal warring. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I have answered positively on several of your requests for community input. I have nothing against you personally, and I don't understand your systematic opposition. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Then simply accept that my comment here was accurate. You converted a tag to a DR and then closed the DR you created within a minute. Self-closing DRs is never good practice, most admins would bend over backwards to avoid being compromized that way. As the case is not clear-cut, there was no good reason for an immediate close without discussion even if an independent admin had wanted to close it.
As for your claim that there is nothing personal going on, please remember your statement if you are tempted to troll me on IRC in the future. --Fæ (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I closed the DR because the request was inacurate. And I never trolled you on IRC. You need to change you usual paranoid perception... Yann (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
So, my one line comment about your bad DR closure was a rant, and I am now mentally disturbed. At what point do you think readers of your attacks will doubt you are being "personal". You really should not be an admin on this project if you cannot resist attacking contributors. --Fæ (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's copyrightable in the US; less sure on France. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Carl. Yann (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
From my point of view, the EB stylise, the 60 figurative pearls around the ellipse, the profusion in the letters... this could not be ignored, this is loosening the law.
And closing without discussion was wrong Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bugatti Veyron (4664325064).jpg, to not say abusive, that was not a speedy keep situation, and he did not reopened the PD, was requested, he came here... -- RTA 18:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
For the U.S., the stylization of letters is not copyrightable. Also, the symbolism or visual effect of any element also does not add to the copyrightability -- if they are circles, they are just circles. The copyrightability rests purely on the delineation itself (or if there is a copyrightable arrangement, which there is not here). France might be a bit different -- their threshold is more if a work has the "imprint of the personality of the author" or something like that. I'm not sure that stylized letters do that alone -- that seems more in the realm of trademark. This might be copyrightable in the UK with their extremely low thresholds, but France seems in general to be higher. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
There are natural limits, otherwise digital images would be non-copyrightable dots in a grid. In this case the top B has more design than simple styling, it is a new graphic by itself. Anyway, the discussion should be in a reopened DR, this noticeboard should not replace other agreed processes. --Fæ (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
If you look at it from that perspective, then it's a copyrightable arrangement of non-copyrightable dots ;-) (As the Copyright Office guideline goes, text is not copyrightable, but if you arrange the text in the shape of a picture to essentially create a drawing, then it is copyrightable). If this was a US-only DR, it would be a quick easy close since we have so many precedents -- the "EB" is still just letters. It's the French part where I'm less sure. Yann may have a better feel for that though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The "EB" part is a "B". The lines behind it look like a mirror E but are there as speed trails, otherwise there would be a meaning for an "E" to be there as a form of ligature and I have found no interpretation that fits this. As for Yann, he has had plenty of opportunity to put a better rationale forward, if he wishes to do so now, then that is good reason to reopen the DR and put it in writing. --Fæ (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a backwards E and a B. Ettore Bugatti was the founder. A couple of lines added (whatever they represent) would generally not matter in the US anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why Yann did not reopened the PD, to prevalence his opinion, as no one here solve the case. French law are far more severe, and we are in doubt, in doubt, the common way to do it is assuming copyright, and this seems to be a political maneuver than really solve the case. Pretty sad. -- RTA 07:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Carl clearly explained in details why this is below ToO. I don't think you know anything about French law, where artistic creations are copyrighted, but this is not one. You and Fae are just wasting my time, and others'. Move on. Yann (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I am so sorry you feel your time is being wasted after you created this thread asking for opinions.
If you want to save time, then rather than opening a pointless extra thread on this noticeboard, you can reopen the Deletion Request that you created and then badly closed without opportunity for the community to express any views, and then take it off your watchlist and allow another admin choose to close it after the normal 7 days have elapsed.
Sticking to the community agreed policies and guidelines for Wikimedia Commons, rather than making up your own rules as you go along and attacking those that point this out, will save you time as a Commons admin and avoid upsetting your fellow contributors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
q.e.d. political maneuver. Nice sysop posture. -- RTA 02:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, i agree with Carl and Yann. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Same here, Hurricane in a Teacup. Plus there's no need to keep DRs open for obvious cases. --Denniss (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If it’s obvious, it doesn’t need a discussion (that’s was a DR is, or calls for: a discussion). If it is in a DR, then it is not obvious, at least not procedurally. If it is obvious, regardless of having been cause for a (needless?) discussion, then it will be dully taken care of once the DR’s seven days expire. Really, it’s that simple. No need to open exceptional VP/C threads; it’s not like an open DR causes a draft that will have us all catching a cold or anything. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If was that obvious, another community would not use that under a fair use (Yann rush up again and imported to here, of course, he don't give a f for discussions, megalomania or something close). And Denniss, if Yann let the DR opened, not closed right after, this discussion was in the correct place, and already ended, so you tanks Yann for not doing the correct thing, and creates hurricanes, just to impose his opinions by political manoeuvres. -- RTA 12:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright is complicated enough that lots of editors will avoid guessing, and simply put non-free on about any logo. It's really only "obvious" (for the U.S. anyways) once you've spent a long time looking at Commons:TOO#United States and reading the cases behind them; there are many Copyright Office decisions posted at ipmall.info if you're interested. It may not be true in other countries, but they always repeat the views that any symbolic meaning does not affect the copyrightability, nor does any visual impact, nor does any commercial success. They look at the actual delineations dispassionately. Additionally, the U.S. explicitly declares "typeface as typeface" as not copyrightable, so even stylized letters are considered minor variations of a utilitarian letter ("mere variations in typographic ornamentation or lettering" is the usual wording). It would only be ornamentation separate from the shape of a letter which would count. Also, simple variations of color are also ignored -- it's the actual lines that really count. It is possible to have a copyrightable arrangement of non-copyrightable elements, but here the small circles are in the shape of an oval, another common shape, and everything is centered. Some of these things can be counterintuitive -- some fairly well-known logos have been ruled non-copyrightable. One example is the interlocking "CC" fabric pattern of Coach handbags -- that was refused, and the company went to court, and in Coach, Inc. v. Peters a court agreed with the non-copyrightability. Elements that can make a logo visually distinctive and cool and qualify the work for trademark (which that is; can be seen here) do not necessarily qualify the work for copyright protection too. The Bugatti logo here is a trademark (seen here) but likewise, there is nothing that would make it qualify for a copyright (in the U.S. anyways). Several of the logos in the COM:TOO section started out as non-free logos on en-wiki before we saw the Copyright Office decisions and changed the licensing. The DR should perhaps have been left open a bit longer, but many admins have been through these cases before. I can definitely folks being surprised, since it's understandably not obvious to them, but someone who has been through many of the cases might have a different perspective. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that none seems as normal 60s of discussion in a DR, I'm a former OTRS volunteer and I know how wrong this "different perspective" could be.
And I did not received not even a warning, and at least one volunteer did not agreed with the sysop, this should have at least a room for discussion, and this is not the properly space for that, as the image was nominate to deletion...
-- RTA 09:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

UK IPO updates its position on digital reproductions of PD works

The UK Intelllectual Property Office (UK IPO) has updated its position on digital reproductions of public domain works. In a recent update to Copyright notice: digital images, photographs and the internet (Copyright Notice #1/2014) the UK IPO added the following answer to the question "Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?":

Simply creating a copy of an image won’t result in a new copyright in the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases.

However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.

This strikes me as a pretty significant development for the use of faithful reproductions of public domain works in the UK, possibly necessitating an update to Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. This clarification strikes me as significant because we've for a long time cautioned that in the UK digital reproductions of public domain works may be protected by copyright. At the very least, it rules out the idea that in the UK the mere effort required in making a digital reproduction of a public domain work justifies a copyright claim over the original reproduction. —RP88 (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that would be very good to note on the PD-Art page. It's not the same as a judicial ruling to that effect, but there have been some in other types threshold of originality cases, so it may well be coming. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Elsie Paroubek headstone photo - got photographer's permission

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Elsie%27s_Headstone.jpg

A photo of Elsie Paroubek's headstone in Bohemian National Cemetery, Chicago, taken by Elliott A. Mason and uploaded by him to Elsie's page at Findagrave.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=19844142

I got permission from the photographer through email to use his photo. Does he have to do something in order to legitimize it? Thank you. -- Bluejay Young (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

COM:OTRS is what you want. BMacZero (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Alcogif.jpg

Hello, does anyone know if File:Alcogif.jpg is in the public domain? I think the only public domain tag that can be applied is {{PD-US-no notice}}. It said that the print is from the 1970s, and looking at the print, it comes from Florida. Can anybody help? Thanks, ★ Poké95 00:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, {{PD-US-no notice}}. I don't think we have a tag specifically for advertisements, which needed their own notice. This page has a larger version, and says it came from the April 1972 issue of American Bicyclist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I updated the file description page and fixed the license header. Will upload the larger version soon. ★ Poké95 01:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I had uploaded the larger version and moved the file to a more meaningful name. ★ Poké95 03:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 03:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Global Geoparks Network logo.jpg

Does the file File:Global Geoparks Network logo.jpg on English language Wikipedia reach the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection or should it be uploaded to Commons?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Unclear. I'd say it probably does, so best to stick with keeping it on en with the NFCC. --Elvey (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nethack General Public License (NGPL) and Commons

Hello! I was wondering if this licence is compatible with Commons, especially about commercial use. Any thoughts? --Scoopfinder(d) 17:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's compatible; it's pretty close to the GPL. But... it's generally just used for Nethack source code if I'm not mistaken, which I'm not sure would be in scope for Commons. Like other source code licenses, it's not well suited for other types of media. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Oh it's about screenshots and pictures of Nethack. What about that paragraph of the licence: "cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of NetHack or any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third parties on terms identical to those contained in this License Agreement"? I am not sure to get if it allows commercial use or not. --Scoopfinder(d) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does allow commercial use, but it is a copyleft license so any derivative work must come with the same license. However, screenshots of Nethack are almost certainly not derivative works of the source code. For more modern games, where copyrightable graphics are distributed with the game and copied onto the screen, it can be different, but Nethack is character graphics, and any on-screen designs are generally not present in the source code. What a computer program *generates* is not a derivative work of its code -- the copyright is in the text of the source code itself. If there are versions of the game which display copyrightable graphics, and those graphics come under the Nethack license, I guess that would be a use. But the character-graphics versions would be PD-ineligible in all likelihood. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we have {{Free screenshot|license=Nethack}} as the way to mark those. That seems to cover all cases. That will include {{NetHack}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Rezonansowy (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the following file below the Threshold of originality in US?

Google is based in the United States where the threshold is high. So this file could be below the threshold. --Rezonansowy (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire V8 JavaScript engine is licensed under BSD license[4]. However I can't find the logo in the source. The SVG version of logo is here. --Rezonansowy (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
IMO, Yes. PD. --Elvey (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd say so as well, per the similarity to other logos that are listed as unoriginal on the US section in COM:TOO.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! Does somebody else would have the same opinion? --Rezonansowy (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Could you also have your say? --Rezonansowy (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  Done I uploaded 3 versions of V8's logo to Category:V8 (JavaScript engine). --Rezonansowy (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

NYC subway audio

Does this video of a NYC subway ride need its audio removed? It includes the prerecorded audio announcing the subway rules/stop. Is that copyrighted? czar 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

COP21 Flickr account

This Flickr account licenses its photos to the public domain, but are their photographers covered? For instance, I tracked one photographer (Arnaud Bouissou of MEDDE) to [5], which doesn't necessarily stipulate a specific license. Anyway, help? czar 20:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that another entity owns the copyright -- a work for hire situation, or something like that. That would mean that entity has the rights to license it (even though the copyright term would still be based on the original photographer). Sounds like the one you found is employed by the French government, which would make sense in this case. It doesn't hurt to ask, and there definitely are some Flickr accounts to be suspicious of, but that one seems OK to assume the license is valid to me. Obviously, name the original photographer if known. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery images

Could someone take a look into the NPG images uploaded by Looking glass 563621 (contribs)? We definitely do not accept licenses with no commmercial / no derivatives clauses, however, we also do not usually honor simple scans of public domain documents (Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). I think these images might be {{PD-UKGov}}.

I know, however, that the NPG has been a bit of a thorn in the WMF's side and I wanted to make sure we don't have some special policy for handling them. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, One is clearly PD-old-70-1923. I tagged the other two with "no license", and asked the uploader to fix that. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I am that user. When I uploaded all three images i included licence details and email correspondence showing the NPG had directly authorised the use (they have been very helpful actually and definitely not a thorn in the side)- see below. What do I need to do get these approved - email OTRS? Thanks Looking glass 563621
Extended content

Thank you for your email and sorry for the delay in getting back to you about this. We are happy for you to licence our images via the Creative Commons licence and then I can grant you additional rights to crop and resize the image (I gather the problem is that our images are too large for Wikipedia). Please forward this email to Wikipedia to show that we are giving permission to resize and crop the image for use on the Wikipedia page.

I hope that helps but do get in touch if you need anything else. Please quote our reference INFO EB/R/Law in all correspondence.

Please confirm your acceptance of our terms and conditions; if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me,

Kind regards, Emma

VAT must be charged at the UK rate of 20%. Our Vat number GB 898083565. All prices quoted in this letter are only valid for a two month period from the post-date. Subsequent transparency hire fees are applicable if a transparency has not been received by us by the end of the first month hire period. Unless otherwise stated, all images must appear with a credit line, which reads, “© National Portrait Gallery, London” (alternatively, this credit may appear within the picture acknowledgements). Images reproduced without a credit line, or in reverse, will be subjected to a penalty fee, which will not be less than the original reproduction fee. One complimentary copy of each publication must be sent to the NPG Picture Library upon publication, for our reference purposes.


Emma Butterfield Senior Rights & Images Officer National Portrait Gallery St Martin's Place London WC2H 0HE

T 020 7312 2474 F 020 7306 0056 www.npg.org.uk click here to register for the Gallery's e-newsletter

This e-mail, and any attachment, is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. P Please consider the environment; do you really need to print this email?

Original Message-----

From: picturelibrary@npg.org.uk [6] Sent: 30 November 2015 21:42 To: Rights and Images Subject: Website contact query 

Dear Sirs

I am currently writing my family's history on Wikipedia - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Ellenborough. I was wondering if it may be possible for me to use one photograph of each of the Barons Ellenborough from your archivehttp://www.npgprints.com/search/keywords/ellenborough for each of my articles on Wikipedia? I have checked the commons licence currently on offer and I do no think it is compatible with Wikipedia as the image cannot be used for derivative use. Any help you can give me with this would be much appreciated.

@Looking glass 563621: email proofs should go through OTRS. See Commons:OTRS and Commons:Email templates. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Can I broaden this out a little - and discuss the practicalities of taking photographs in museums in the time of austerity in the UK. I don't know if you are aware that we have lost one of our excellent GLAM partners because the local authority has no money- and is obliged to close all non-statuary services (most libraries, all museums, most leisure centres etc. Lancashire Cuts:- Category:Queen Street Mill refers; we have one sound clip. Our friends at LCC have the authority to write an OTRS statement- but absolutely no time.

 
Clem gabbing, Photo by Andy Mabbett

Consider the photo of me talking to the demonstrator. She was so knowledgeable and spoke in a clear East Lancashire accent that I want to record, and upload. As a practising Commoner, there was no way I could get a copyright statement to cover a sound clip- I have neither name or contact details and she loses her job 31st March.

So can we turn this whole thing round and tailor OTRS towards helping me obtain that sound clip (and in the same way get permission for a current work of art when I am invited to an exhibition and meet the artist).


So what do I want? I want to carry a stack of pretty post cards- similar to the visting card that we regularly exchange- 

It will have the commons logo-
To: My name and address and User Name ( I can handle that with a sticker )

I [Name                   ] freely give permission for my images/voice 

[                                                                                               ]
[                                                                                               ]
[                                                    description of images or camera dscf number]
to be uploaded onto the Wikipedia Commons site using a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence.
Signed [                                                ] dated [                               ]

[email address: (optional)                                                                      ]
[position if relevant:                                                                          ]
[any restrictions: (usually none)                                                               ]

Not valid till this card has been photographed and forwarded to OTRS
Description of CC-BY-SA

Other legal gumpf

This means I can get the subject photographed/ recorded/ Videoed, and to confirm copyright waiver in one short immediate transaction. It has the added attraction that it gives me an easy identity card and conversation opener. The back of the card could be used for Wikimedia /Commons promotional material- including an invitation to donate relevant material. A further bonus!

But we can't do this individually (corporate style- and copyright restriction on our logo!). Commons could however approve the scheme (get lawyer approval) and leave a svg template available to confirmed uploaders etc. The important principal is that it is photographer led and makes the process of obtaining material easier rather than a game of 'snakes and ladders'.

In the photograph you would see me, giving her a card, getting the OK to record, do the 2 min recording. Help her fill in the card within 20 secs, offer profuse thanks and let her get back to work. I go home, post process the sound and images, photograph all the days cards- write in title and email the lot to OTRS for approval, two days later I get OTRS confirmation, and press upload on Commonist.

I open that to further thoughts, comments and consideration. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Maps derived from EG-MAPS

Hello, I have noticed that some maps are derivatives (simple recolorations) of maps published by the Leibniz - Institute for European History Mainz, Germany (http://www.iegmaps.de/). The Institute allows downloads for personal use but the maps have no Creative Commons license (information on licensing (in German): http://www.iegmaps.de/nutz.htm).

The maps are the following:

--94.134.199.65 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. The uploader's talk page shows that this was discussed with him back in 2013 and he claims to have a written licence from the IEG. But apparently this was matter was then simply forgotten. I'm going to mark these files for missing permission and will leave a message to Frank Gnegel. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Melodiya.png

Hi, Is the Melodiya logo {{PD-textlogo}}? See ru:Файл:По_волне_моей_памяти_Пластинка3.jpg. Thanks, --Dogad75 (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

File:The Four Preps In The Late 50's.jpg

The file's date is 1958, and is published in the U.S. I found two possible U.S. copyright tags that can be applied to this file: {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Which of those two should I use (or if none of the two, what copyright tag should be used)? Thanks, ★ Poké95 04:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are the possibilities, but there needs to be evidence. Where was the image published? Almost looks like the back cover of an album given its shape. Was it actually published in 1956, or 1958, or just created then and published later? We would need to see everything the photo was distributed with, and the back, to see if there was no copyright notice. With that kind of evidence, I don't think we can claim no-notice. For renewal, we would need to know it was actually published before 1964, and then see who the copyright owners might be, then find no renewals on copyright.gov that might apply to it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

File:BayeuxTapestryScene16 17.png

File:BayeuxTapestryScene16_17.png Should this be listed as public domain? I'm assuming that images should be listed under the least restrictive liscense that fits? (The related File:BayeuxTapestryScene17.jpg is listed as public domain.) Certainly the original tapestry is long out of copyright.  ;-) --Cloveapple (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I changed the license of both files to {{PD-art|PD-old-100-1923}}. It is an ancient work, so it should be in the public domain (unless it is photographed, where the photographer's license is needed). Keeping this discussion open for 3 days to see if anyone oppose. Thanks, ★ Poké95 06:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
If that is a licensed photo of the work, then we may want to preserve that part -- that is what {{Licensed-PD-Art}} is for (noting that the photo, in jurisdictions which might protect the photo separately, is still OK). If we don't think the uploader actually took and licensed the photo, then yes, {{PD-art|PD-old-100-1923}} should work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I changed the license to {{Licensed-PD-Art}}, with CC-BY-SA-3.0 the license. ★ Poké95 01:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Amu Darya bridge

Is this bridge trivial enough to be uploaded on Commons? There is no FoP in Uzbekistan.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty front and centre to me, not like something that was just accidentally caught in the image. COM:DM has a "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." item that is classified as "unlikely to meet de minimis" and this photo seems like it'd fit in that class. Also, that file is tagged "Alle Rechte Vorbehalten" (All rights reserved) on my screen, but if you are the copyright holder you can presumably change it.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It is certainly not DM, the question is whether the bridge is copyrightable or not. I guess there was a discussion here recently on the bridges in the former Soviet Union, with the conclusion most of them are not individual enough to be copyrightable. The photo is mine, and if it can be kept on Commons at all, I would upload a higher resolution, not repost from Flickr.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Jake White

Hi all, I have a quick question. User:Cornelius83 uploaded this file, stating it's an "own work". However, the photographer's name appears on the image itself, so it does seem to be a copyright violation. The same user uploaded two more images which I am unsure about; I can't seem to find any of these when I do a Google image search, and I can't seem to see anything in the photo's metadata to help me either. The user suggested in his editing summary and on his talk page that he might have a personal relationship with the subject (which raises conflict of interest issues but anyway...). Is there any way to do a more thorough check, or to ensure proper attribution is attained for these images? Thanks, TheMightyPeanut (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the first image you linked is not free and should be deleted, it has a watermark of the real owner and also, if the uploader held the rights to it, he would have uploaded the original version of the image with the exif intact..the other 2 images seem to be personal but within our project scope and we can keep those provided they were cropped to removed the background (sofa?) though i doubt it would be good enough to use on Jake's article...--Stemoc 01:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Coroner report photograph submitted as evidence in trial

Hi, is a photo taken by a coroner in a murder trial and submitted as legal evidence have copyright protection in Israel, or is it have public domain status? This is definitely not a creative work. Marokwitz (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Marokwitz, unless there is some specific law about works by government officials (acting in an official capacity) being public domain, it would be copyrighted. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Please do differentiate between public domain (copyright) and public record (access). Coroner's files might be public record in your country, but that does move them into the public domain. --h-stt !? 13:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Is Mein Kampf allowed on Wikimedia Commons in 2016? --84.61.149.146 15:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There are already several covers of the book in Category:Mein Kampf. MB298 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
If you mean the full text, yes, once the copyright held by the Bavarian state government lapses. However, newly annotated versions cannot be uploaded here as such annotations will be copyrighted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
If it is "allowed" is not only a question of copyright, but also of project scope. As far as copyright is concerned, the copyright in Germany indeed expires on January 1, 2016, but I'm not so sure about the situation in the US. As the work was published in 1924 and 1926 (two volumes), it should still be protected there until 2019 and 2021, respectively. Apparently the book's copyright was "seized" by the government in the US in 1942 (accd. to en:Mein Kampf), but did not expire. As works on Commons need to be free both in their country of origin and the US, that would mean the book is not OK copyrightwise for several more years. --Rosenzweig τ 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
As a seized work from Nazi Germany where the copyright was owned by a government entity, the URAA did not apply to it (17 USC 104A(a)(2)). I think I see that the second volume was renewed in the U.S. by Houghton Mifflin, so the first volume might be OK in the US (and it's not clear what standing Houghton Mifflin had to renew, but I'm not sure that has been challenged). Obviously, translations have their own copyright and some of those were renewed and would be fully copyrighted, plus any annotations on later printings would have a separate copyright too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Pacino and Hackman photo

This 1973 original movie photo has a full printed description on the front and the seller wrote that there is nothing printed on the back. I would appreciate any feedback on whether it would this be acceptable with a PD-Pre1978 template? --Light show (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Any evidence that this copy was actually made and distributed in 1973? gettyimages has a copy, with the same photo number, but with a clear copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This might have been a publicity still for a later showing, maybe TV, so I'll have to check Getty more often for photos. Thanks for reviewing. --Light show (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

PD-CAGov

Does Template:PD-CAGov apply to works created by employees of public universities in California? The template states that certain colleges have some kind of special status in California law. For example, would images such as Michael V. Drake.jpg be free? According to the University of California website, it would seem these kinds of images are not free. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 19:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Doubt about a painting (Charles Voillemot, Portrait of Juliette Drouet)

Is this painting PD because of his author or is it under copyright because there are third party rights? The version I uploaded has a strange Exif saying "out of copyright" and then "Copyright: www.bridgemanart.com". The picture at bridgemanart.com shows a watermark which is not present in the version here; nevertheless the two images are identical. If it is not possible to keep the present version, I'll revert to the previous low resolution pic.--Carnby (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It is fine. The painting is in the public domain since long, any 2D reproduction is also fine. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for details. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.--Carnby (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Vinci square at night

I took this pic two days ago in Vinci; I thought it was de minimis, but I'm not so sure: the Uomo di Vinci by Mario Ceroli is still rather big.

Do you think it's OK for Commons?--Carnby (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

To me it looks like the square is the focus of the image, with the Uomo di Vinci being just "by catch", an unavoidable consequence of taking a photography of the square. Leaning towards OK, myself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Morphing photos of Kim Jong-un

There is currently no freely licensed photograph of Kim Jong-un available, and there is strong demand for one. If I worked with two (or more) copyrighted photos of him taken by two different photograpbers and then used morphing software to merge them, would the result be an original work that I could upload to Commons? If I overlaid the resulting morphed face onto a freely licensed background image of North Korean flags or architecture, would that help make my work original? How about painting software that transforms a photo into a simulated painting? I appreciate any advice that experienced folks can offer. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like it'd be a non-free derivative work, unless there are limits as to how many times a work can be transformed before the original copyrights stop applying.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Review needed for Leslie Howard photo

This photo of Leslie Howard has all pertinent info on the front and back. It's an original Fotofest image which was used in Look magazine. Does it seem OK for commons?

There's also this one, which the seller says has nothing on the back. --Light show (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

First one seems pretty solidly OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --Light show (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Retouched OTRS image

Is this image free? It is a retouched version of this, which has one of those OTRS tags. SharkD  Talk  02:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I presume yes - a free content license does entail the permission to make a derivative work. So if that OTRS tag is good then this image should be as well, although you may want to indicate the OTRS permission for the image your file was derived from.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
What's the best way to indicate this? SharkD  Talk  18:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you don't need to use the OTRS tag as long as you indicate the source file. And yes, it is free. ★ Poké95 01:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Mimmo Paladino artwork on a square (piazza Guidi)

Do you think these pics are OK for Commons? In Italy there's no FoP.

The surface of the square has been entirely decorated by Mimmo Paladino, a contemporary Italian artist.--Carnby (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy photo

Can someone review this publicity image of Leonard Nimoy from 1973? It lacks a notice and the back indicates it was published. --Light show (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There are a bunch of markings on it which look like they are from a TV network or TV magazine in the 1970s. My concerns would be that 1), it was a wire photo, printed at the TV magazine office and used there and never distributed (lack of notice wouldn't mean much for wire photos), or 2) it was a photo by the TV magazine staff and never distributed publicly without notice (if it was in a TV magazine, and the magazine had a copyright notice, that would be enough for a magazine-owned photo). I haven't found any other copies of it -- any idea of where it came from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
No idea. It's another of those publicity photos out in the wild. --Light show (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It would be best to find some indication (even from another source) that the authorship was someone other than the TV magazine (and preferably other than AP or UPI, which would make a wire photo more likely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's another copy I came across. --Light show (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Munsell color solid

I created an image that uses this data (which was published recently) to determine the colors. Is that okay to do or are there copyright issues? SharkD  Talk  17:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The information itself is not protected by copyright. So, I think, you can use them. Ruslik (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Here are their Terms of Use. Does that complicate matters? SharkD  Talk  03:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
You already stated in your file's description that your image is only an approximation of the Munsell notation, so I even if their original notation may be trademarked I don't see anything wrong with your file. De728631 (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The data for the approximations are also provided by RIT, however. SharkD  Talk  02:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If you did not use anything from RIT besides the data, the image should be fine. Hop on Bananas (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Iranian Tasnim News Agency Watermarked Photos Released Under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

I have been working on the 2015 Mina stampede article on the English Wikipedia, as part of that I've been searching for photos that are free use by Wikimedia's rules. I think I have found a selection of such photos here at the Tasnim News Agency. They are watermarked with Tasnim's logo, and the bottom of the page says "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License". Can anyone tell me if Tasnim is a valid source for images? Or do they have a reputation for repackaging other people's work and putting their name on it? Thanks. Carl Henderson 05:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea on this? Should I go ahead and upload from that page? Carl Henderson 02:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sgt. Meyer Levin photo

Is this photo of him, taken around 1942, and published here in 1972, OK to upload? --Light show (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that website was not published in 1972. Does the original publication have a copyright notice? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I found this book by the same author with the same title, published in 2001. With the date at the top of the web article being 1972, I'm guessing the book was a compilation of earlier published stories, possibly in a magazine. That's all I can find. There's nothing that shows up in a copyright image search. In case there's still a problem, can someone else upload this as non-free (deceased)? --Light show (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
You need to see if there was no copyright notice on the actual, published copy. If we can't see that, we can't assume anything. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
In searching for the image below, I found a version of this first one on eBay as an AP wire photo. So, the only chance for that is probably PD-US-not_renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Alternate photo, from newspaper. I zoomed in and saw no notice. --Light show (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
That does have a stamp from Wide World Photo, and the copy was also at the Baltimore Sun, so... I think that is OK. I can't fully read the stamp on the back even with zooming in, but looking at similar stamps in other places, it was a requested credit and note about trademark (and saying the photo cannot be used for advertising purposes). I'd say that one is OK. If possible, upload the back as well so it's in the image history. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. --Light show (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The eBay auction has higher-res versions.[7][8] Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Dingbat, unknown, CC0?

Hi, I would like to get help researching the original source for File:Ballot Box Silhouette.svg, as the original uploader did not give sufficient information about source and author and this needs to be fixed or deleted. --.js (((☎))) 19:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Roman Polanski photo

This photo of Polanski came from the Baltimore Sun, 1981. No notice. Copyright search for either him or the Baltimore Sun came up with no photo copyrights registered for either. His article lacks any early images so this one might be a decent addition if OK. --Light show (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Copies needed to be distributed without notice. Is there evidence of distribution? If this was a Baltimore Sun staff photo, then lack of notice means nothing, since it was just a private copy. The copyright in the newspaper would cover the publication there, so you need to show that this copy was distributed for the lack of notice to have meaning. If this was a wire photo printed in the Baltimore Sun offices, again, lack of notice probably means nothing. Lack of notice is just one aspect; the evidence needs to show distribution as well. That might be done by proving authorship other than the paper in other ways, but it needs to be done somehow. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Found this one, showing it was an AP photo. Which makes sense, since local city papers in the U.S. didn't usually have their staff go to Europe to take photos. --Light show (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
... which means it was likely a wire photo printed at the Baltimore Sun offices and kept private. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Private or not, only AP would hold the copyright to the image. The newspaper could only copyright their text, or for photos, a compilation of photos (rare). I already searched and found no images of Polanski registered since 1978. Wouldn't the PCP be relevant, especially considering this: In an attempt to determine if AP/Wide World registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed.--Light show (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
AP alone licenses over 3,000 photos a day. Which would equal about 55 million since just 1965. Only a "few" images were copyrighted. --Light show (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Works published since 1964 did not need to be registered or renewed to keep copyright. Again, that "only a few images" thing is about copyright renewal; it has no bearing on any photographs 1964 or later since renewal became automatic for those, and they have a 95 years from publication copyright term. Searching will not help with such photos, unless you can show it was published without notice and such publication happened from 1978 to 1989. There is no such indication here, so yes, COM:PCP would apply -- we would delete the work since there is a significant doubt as to its status. As you say, the actions of the newspaper probably could not result in AP losing their copyright. Since there is no known way the copyright was lost, then it is most likely still valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, believe it or not, I'm still unclear on this. The first link above shows that it was published, shows the original photo without a notice, and even shows the crop marks and a newspaper clip after it was printed. Why wouldn't this be acceptable under template:PD-US-1989? --Light show (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The "published without a copyright notice" thing means the copies actually, physically distributed to the public (i.e. not to a limited set of people for a limited purpose) did not have a notice on them. The physical copies in the newspaper itself most likely had a copyright notice (the single copyright notice on the entire newspaper issue would have protected all content, save advertisements). So yes the photo was definitely published, but not necessarily published without a copyright notice. For a wire photo, the image was transmitted over telephone lines and printed at clients' sites. Thus, for wire photos, the physical copy local to the newspaper was not something distributed by the copyright owner themselves, and in general was kept privately by the newspaper or wherever and not distributed at all. So, they can usually not be the basis for a "published without notice" situation -- it was not that copy which was published/distributed. They made copies in the actual newspaper yes, but that newspaper likely had a copyright notice -- and it's not clear that lack of notice by a third party would result in a lost copyright, especially in more modern times (i.e. 1960s 1970s) where courts were trying to find rationales to prevent loss of copyright if they could. Physical copies which have an imprint of the actual publicity agency, and then also have a dated imprint of another party like a newspaper, shows that those physical copies actually changed hands before 1978 (or 1989) and therefore the lack of copyright should mean something.
For a long time, works needed to be actively renewed at the U.S. copyright office after 28 years in order to keep copyright for the full term. In 1992, that was done away with, and renewals became automatic. Thus, works published in 1964 or later do not need to have anything on file at the U.S. Copyright Office to retain their copyright. As a result, any public domain status could only come from the lack of copyright notice on a distributed copy -- and since we don't have ownership of any physical copies and do not know their provenance, we normally want very clear evidence of both properties -- evidence of actual distribution before 1978 and lack of copyright notice -- before being comfortable enough to say to re-users, "we think this is free". If someone uses these images and later gets sued, they would need some concrete evidence to base their defense on, not just hope and percentages. If we find such a copy but it was published 1978 and before 1989, then we *also* need to do the Copyright Office search since copyright owners could resurrect the copyright by (among other things) filing a registration per the new 1978 rules. For works before 1964, if we find a true no-notice copy that is enough, but we also have the not-renewed safety net if we are wrong about that -- like you say, very few were renewed and someone would have to prove the copyright renewal if they sue anyone for infringement. Searching for renewals is difficult (generally have to search over three years, in the online volumes, and need to search artwork, periodicals, perhaps commercial prints, and also have to hope it wasn't in a book which got renewed), but at least it's possible. For 1964-1977 works, there is no safety net -- if we are wrong about the copyright notice, then it's still under copyright, and there could be big problems. Secondly, companies were far more aware about copyright in the 1960s and especially 1970s, and judges were also far more likely to stretch to find logic to prevent loss of copyright, so it's far far more dangerous to declare works from this period to be public domain. It definitely did happen, but we really should see very solid evidence of both no notice, and evidence of actual distribution. Wire photos typically fail badly on the second part of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
That all makes sense now. I didn't realize a wire photo was not actually an "original," so thanks for taking the time explaining this. --Light show (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wheeler 1933

Upon looking at this, I'm not sure if the images and such are no longer under copyright in this publication. Here's what I know:

  • It was published in 1933
  • It was copyrighted in 1933, but I'm not sure if it was renewed
  • The author died more than 70 years ago (1937 to be exact).

I'm not familiar with US copyright, so could anyone provide assistance? Thank you, Burklemore1 (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

If it was not renewed, it is in public domain now. If it was renewed the copyright term is 95 years after the publication (i.e. until 2028). Ruslik (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
2029, to be precise ;-) -- expires at the end of the year 95 years after publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately this was in fact renewed in 1961 so according to the Commons:Hirtle chart it's not yet free. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys, it's unfortunate that it isn't free as of yet. There are some pretty nice images in there to use too. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Mkbyn2.png

File was uploaded as "own work", but it looks as if it comes from this website. Content on the website is licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License" so I'm wondering if that means the licensing for the file should be tweaked to include this information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License" is incompatible with the Commons. However, the file was uploaded by user:Makabayan web who may be the author of the image or a representative of the organization. So, it is better to ask for an OTRS confirmation of the release under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. Ruslik (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ruslik. By "ask for permission" do you mean tag the image with {{No permission since}}? Makabayan web's only two edits to Commons were to upload the file being discussed and File:Mkbyn.jpg back in November 2009 so I'm not sure if they still are active. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

New template needed

In reviewing recent uploads by ManFromNord from the Nationaal Archief Fotocollectie Anefo I see they use the template {{Nationaal Archief-license}} which transcludes with a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-nl}} licence but the website does not appear to use it. the current licence on the site appear to mostly be tagged with a {{cc-by-4.0-nl}} licence. Maybe we need an update cc-by-4.0 version of this Nationaal Archief tag because changing the current cc-by-sa- 3.0 template alone does not solve the problem as that would give an incorrect licence to images that already use the tag as it is now. I've given a good review on the basis that an accurate template can be applied soon. Thanks in advance. Ww2censor (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hamilton cast

  File:Obama greets the cast and crew of Hamilton musical, 2015.jpg

Are the costumes (or ensemble of costumes together) original enough to be copyrighted under COM:COSTUME? Or are they the same as period dress? I didn't think the set was particularly prominent in the photo enough to be copyrighted. Any thoughts? czar 22:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue. Clothing is not copyrightable, and modern versions of old clothing would almost certainly be the same -- quite a bit different than fanciful comic book character costumes. And while you can get a "selection and arrangement" copyright, the selection and arrangement would have to be the result of a human author -- not people positioning themselves (and it would have to be in a fixed medium). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

University photo collections

Are 100+ year old photographs held in public university collections such as these in the public domain?Timdwilliamson (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

0h, never mind. Just read the website usage section, which I'd overlooked before. Looks like they are off limits. Timdwilliamson (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Timdwilliamson: If they are from before 1923, as those are, and they were published in the USA, as apparently is the case, then they are PD and can be uploaded here. See {{PD-old-1923}}.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they were "published" per se. They were part of a private collection of photographs donated to the University. Tim D. Williamson (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Timdwilliamson: - All the sample images shown in the link you provided seem to be postcards, rather than private photos (they display the writing with the location in the negative, as was usual among photographers producing both commercial and amateur postcards to sell. It is therefore very likely that they were published and sold, back then. Most probably, it was the way they ended up in that collection. I would upload them under {{PD-old-1923}} and categorize them as postcards, as that's what they seem to be. They seem to be from different photographers or commercial houses. 1 and 4 say "Huff" (but probably from different periods, writing is quite different), 3 says something else (we can read something like "FFY").-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@DarwIn: Thanks for the advice. I'm fairly new to Commons, but I'm learning. Tim D. Williamson (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Rohingya militants.jpg and File:Mujahid-Rohingya.jpg

Both files uploaded by user Stevejaw as "own work", but they seem to be scans of photos taken from somewhere else, perhaps a newspaper. They are the only two edits made to Commons by this user, so not sure how to verify their source or whether are "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

They are unlikely to be their own work, so you should nominate the images for deletion. Ruslik (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Flags from The Witcher & Category:Coats of arms from The Witcher

Many of these flags and coats of arms look fairly detailed and I am curious about the copyright status of these. If they are based on actual imagery of the books and games then, at first sight, this is likely a copyright violation. However, I can also see that some if not most of these have been created from existing SVG files with permissive licences. For instance, File:Cintra flag.svg incorporates the lions of File:National Coat of arms of Denmark.svg. In any case, some are not properly sourced. For instance, I suspect that File:Maecht COA.svg and File:Kovir&Poviss COA.svg a derivative works too, but they do not mention the original source and instead the uploader claims copyright. Also noteworthy: some images mention the users J_a1 and Arvedui89 as the authors, though the former user page redirects to the latter (see e.g. here: File:Thyssenid COA.svg).–Totie (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

These two users is me in both cases, I changed my general username few years ago – that's why there is a redirect. All used parts came from other free-licenced files from Commons – books don't contain any ‘official’ coats of arms’/flags’ designs. Give me a few days and I'll try to make a review and track that back. Aʀvєδuι + 20:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. If these were all your creations then there is of course nothing wrong. Just make sure you indicate the originals.–Totie (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright of sign in Xanadu house photo from the Florida Memory Collection

Assuming that this photo from the Florida Memory Collection is allowable under the provisions of {{Attribution-FLGov-PhotoColl}}, would the the depicted "Welcome to Xanadu Home of the Future..." sign (which appears to have something like a star or a compass over the word "Xanadu") be a copyright issue or would it be a case of {{PD-ineligible}}? --Gazebo (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This is {{Pd-text}}, the star being so small that to be de minimis. Ruslik (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. The photo has been uploaded. --Gazebo (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/12&oldid=358738791"