Open main menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04

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


Macedonian photographs

{{PD-Macedonia}} seems inconsistent regarding photographs... Does anyone know if it was 25 years pma or from publication? Unfortunately, the template creator seems to have left. Question prompted by Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Racin.jpg. Storkk (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

25 years from publication. Article 84 in the 1978 Yugoslav law, which is in this PDF (starts a few pages in). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Carl... you've outdone yourself again. I've edited the template to remove the inconsistency. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 03:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Tailored licenses

I have access to library pictures that I would like to use in wikipedia articles. The library (which also own the copyrights) ia happy to allow me to do this, but it only wants to license the pictures for non-commercial uses. I have read the actual licenses that are provided on the upload page of wikicommons and all purport to license the pictures for any purpose, including commercial. This is a big stumbling block for academic institutions. Is there any way to use a license which permits free use except for commercial purposes? This of course wouldn't require wikicommons to police usage, only to state under what terms the picture is licensed. RaptorExchange (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no way to accept such pictures. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that is a situation where one should point out that several other institutions have agreed to licence their material freely or the material is in the public domain, such as images in these Category:Images from museums and are probably not unduly concerned about some possible commercial use. Remember there are benefits to those institutions in doing so, such as increased traffic to both their website and physical locations and I'm sure other benefits too. Others have released material on Flickr under terms that there are "no known copyright restrictions", so refer them also to, though that does not actually mean all the material is verifiably free; there have been a few problem images too. An issue to also bear in mind is that some institutions claim copyright over material that is actually in the public domain. Just my 2c worth. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Is is not a matter of law but of Commons policy that we do not accept licences that exclude commercial use. However, perhaps your library would be willing to release lower quality or reduced resolution images. See com:Licensing where this is discussed. Some people think the legal situation in the wider world is not clear but Commons policy would stop us from then hosting a higher quality image. Thincat (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
See also Commons:GLAM and Commons:Partnerships - so, yes, there are quite a lot of academic institutions that have no problem with the "commercial use must be allowed" requirement of Commons policy. I would rather not recommend to "release lower quality or reduced resolution images" due to the unclear legal situation (i.e. is it possible at all to specify a license only for a particular resolution, or are licenses applying to the underlying work anyway?) Gestumblindi (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Once free, always free?

This section was archived on a request by: KDS4444 (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I've got a book about early railroads. Most, if not all, of the images are from public domain drawings. The book even states that, except where noted, the illustrations were taken from copyright free sources. But then it goes on to say that no part of the book can be duplicated without permission from the author and publisher. Can they apply copyright to PD images simply by republishing them? - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 04:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Timdwilliamson: Only if the republication is original enough. Scanning a public domain book is not original, while photographing it is original enough. Poké95 04:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Scanning is just another form of photography, especially now that most people are using digital cameras. That makes no sense. Anyway, I'm not talking about scanning or photographing the whole book, just individual illustrations. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
IF (the picture is a mere copy of the initial drawing, AND is itself PD), THEN no restriction can be made to their scan and reuse.
On the other hand, some author's right claim could be legitimate (1) If a picture has been (artistically) reframed, the new frame can be subject to copy right, OR (2) if the picture selection in itself can be seen as a author's work (for instance, selections in an anthology) then the selection as a whole could be subject to copy rights (but not any given individual pictures when reproduced alone).
Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I thought. 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
And just to reiterate: that is my interpretation as well. They can copyright their book, and they can claim as copyright holder that none of it may be reproduced, in whole or in part, without their permission, but the thing to which they "hold" the copyright is the book, not (necessarily) the specific individual separate photographs or drawings within that book. You should still provide a link to the book in the "source" field of your file description, because other editors need to be able to verify where the media files came from, but you should mark them as being licensed under public domain terms and you should provide another link which points to evidence of this (even if that link is to the same book-- you could also provide a bibliographic description that mentions the page of the book which states that the images are public domain, if that is where the statement exists). KDS4444 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of new data centre in Texas

We have just had a hat-note notify us of a new data centre in Texas. What are the copyright implications? Do I understand correctly that we must now obey Californian, Floridan and Texan State laws when posing an image? What is their definition of 2D free images- 25yr after death of the artist- 30, 50, 75 a hundred? Has anyone a definitive answer?--ClemRutter (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright law is a federal matter, a datacenter move doesn't affect it one way or another seeing as they are all part of the same federal entity.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Giacomo Ceconi SLO

I have one question. Why wikimedia didn't show file Giacomo Ceconi on Wikipedia? The truth is that tex was translated from italian language to slovenian. Please help me with advices.


User: planina 734

Commons is for media files, to start an article on Slovenian Wikipedia on Giacomo Ceconi add text to sl:Giacomo Ceconi. --Sporti (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Logos de organizaciones de Mexico y {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}

This thread is intended mainly to the user from Mexico, for that reason I'm wrote the following in spanish. You can, of course, comment in the language of your preference.
In a nutshell: I'm asking if the companies or enterprises of Mexico are considered as "recognized organizations" under the legislation of Mexico, according to what says {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}).

En el último tiempo, he visto una mala interpretación de la Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor de Mexico (o mejor dicho, una mala interpretación de una traducción no oficial), especificamente el Art. 14 subpárrafo VII (reflejado en {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}). La versión española de la plantilla refleja lo que dice la Lay Federal de forma más fiel que la traducción al inglés, lo que ha llevado a una confusión a cerca del campo de aplicación de la Ley Federal. La Ley federal dice:

Artículo 14.- No son objeto de la protección como derecho de autor a que se refiere esta Ley:
VII. Las reproducciones o imitaciones, sin autorización, de escudos, banderas o emblemas de cualquier país, estado, municipio o división política equivalente, ni las denominaciones, siglas, símbolos o emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente, así como la designación verbal de los mismos;

En este caso, de acuerdo con la legislación mexicana,

  • Se consideran las empresas o compañías como organización reconocida oficialmente, a efectos de excepción del derecho de autor de sus logotipos?

Sugiero a los usuarios de Mexico que se contacten con algun abogado o con el Gobierno Federal, a fin de esclarecer este pequeño vacío legal, el cual ha llevado a deshacerse de muchos logos de compañías mexicanas, si es posible.

Un saludo y gracias compañeros mexicanos. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hola. Las empresas y compañías no son, para efectos del artículo 14 fracción VII, "organizaciones reconocidas oficialmente" ya que no poseen tal "reconocimiento". Lo que las empresas y compañías tienen es el otorgamiento de personalidad jurídica, lo cual es muy diferente y no por ello dejan de considerarse como particulares para los efectos del derecho. Además, aún cuando los logotipos de las marcas no son objeto de protección en la ley de derechos de autor si lo son en los términos de la Ley de la Propiedad Industrial como marcas (vid. artículo 89 de LPI) y por tanto, con derecho a exclusividad y a la oposición al uso erróneo de la misma, lo cual, nos priva de poder hacer uso de ellas en Wikimedia Commons salvo en los casos de excepción como en el caso del umbral de originalidad, por ejemplo. --Salvador alc (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, eso tiene sentido, en ese caso hay que distinguir bien entre Trademark y Copyright (considerando que Commons sólo le es relevante el Copyright). Ya que lo mencionas, por favor aclara si los logos de compañias están protegidos o no por la Ley Federal de Derecho de Autor (la Ley de Propiedad Industrial puede no ser del todo relevante, al tratarse de una ley más relacionada con el Trademark más que con el Copyright; si estoy equivocado por favor detalla eso).
Pero, ¿qué hay de otras organizaciones como los los Clubes deportivos/sociales? ¿Se consideran como organizaciones reconocidas para efectos de la Ley Federal? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Trademark with limited permission already granted?

The definitive book on the Perl programming language is "Programming Perl" by Tom Christiansen, brian d foy, Larry Wall, Jon Orwant (published by O'Reilly Media) featuring a very intricate drawing of a camel, that has become the de facto mascot/symbol for the Perl programming language. O'Reilly Media holds a trademark on this image. In The Perl Camel FAQ O'Reilly grants permission to use the camel logo, in all ways I believe WikiMedia would use the image. (i.e. O'Reilly has granted permission for Wikimedia, a non-commercial website, to use this image to refer to the Perl Programming language, portraying Perl "in a positive light.") The permission granted is not broad enough to meet Wikimedia Commons requirement for unrestricted permission for reuse in any context; So it is Wikimedia's policies, and not O'Reilly's lack of permission, preventing this image from being included in then general Wikimedia Commons collection. I believe this image may be beneficial within Wikipedia's collection of articles on Perl. Is there somewhere within Wikimedia where images like this, with limited reuse permissions granted, can be submitted for inclusion in Wikipedia. (The Wikipedia article on "Programming Perl" already includes a picture of the book cover, prominently featuring this camel image.)

I am aware of Wikimedia's preference for vector images, and have created a rather detailed SVG conversion of this image, that I would like to contribute to Wikimedia, if there is an appropriate place for it to exist. - Loren Osborn 06:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons accepts trademarked images if the copyright is in order, see Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#Trademark_law. Use Template:Trademarked to warn users. --ghouston (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Linux_dr The camel is already in English Wikipedia as en:File:Perl-camel-small.png. It is low resolution, but because of en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, that is intentional. If you have an SVG image then you might replace that image with yours, if yours is better, but please still be conscious of Wikipedia's intent to avoid distributing images that the copyright holder has not release for distribution.
At the Perl FAQ they say that they would not want the camel published on t-shirts. I confirm - the camel does not have a free copyright license as defined by Creative Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, thank you for a link to the camel image. I missed it in my quick search. If I understand en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria correctly, the intention of preference for low resolution images of trademarked logos, etc, is to fall within fair-use on logos where the rights holder has not expressly granted permission. In this case, the rights holder has expressly granted permission for non-commercial reuse on websites in reference to Perl, so I don't think this restriction applies. My SVG file would, by definition, not be low resolution, so please offer your opinion before I proceed.
Also, a minor correction. The FAQ does expressly mention reuse on t-shirts:
  • While implying that they would like to be notified, they state that for t-shirt designs with a lifetime print-run of less than 100 shirts, "you may consider permission automatically granted"
  • They invite requests to use the Perl camel on more widely distributed t-shirts, stating: "We promise to answer quickly!"
Ultimately, this is far from unrestricted permission, but saying "they would not want the camel published on t-shirts" is at least a slight exaggeration.
Again, thanks for your assistance. - Loren Osborn 17:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Linux dr I miscommunicated about the t-shirts - sorry. But having any restriction on publishing the image on t-shirts - even if some number is allowable - still means that the image does not have a free license and cannot be hosted in Commons.
I am not sure that SVG can have "high definition". Does it make sense to say that vector graphics have definition, or is that a term just for raster graphics? There are svg logos already on Wikipedia. I think those are allowable, just because it is the nature of the format, and because SVG is the better way to store a photo whenever possible. What do you think about this guidance - en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution. This does not apply, right? We might ask for clarification at en:Wikipedia talk:Non-free content but I think the svg would be preferred. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I will ask on the en:Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page you suggested. "Definition" with regard to image quality is generally a marketing term and doesn't really have a technical meaning. "Resolution" is generally the equivalent technical term, and that does really only apply to raster images, as you suggest. (Some vector images use a resolution to communicate an intended size; but this has no effect on image clarity or detail.) Generally vector images are generally the highest fidelity way to store digital drawings but they are generally not appropriate for digital photographs or image scans, which are natively raster images. Vector images can have a varying levels of detail, but there are generally no accepted ways to measure or compare that. It's important to note that the point of the low resolution restriction is to reduce image fidelity, to make it less commercially valuable from a piracy perspective. If the "low resolution" guidance DOES apply to this trademark, then I expect a highly detailed SVG would not be a welcomed submission.
Also, please pardon my suggesting adding the Camel to Wikimedia Commons, as I was confusing Commons with Wikimedia hosting in general. This image clearly has no place in a Creative Commons licensed image repository. I was referring to the Camel's use within Wikipedia, specifically. Thanks again for all your suggestions. - Loren Osborn 22:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we have an answer... The SVG image isn't allowed (unless it comes from O'Reilly directly, perhaps.) - Loren Osborn 5:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Getty pictures

What copyright laws do Getty images come under and when does the copyright expire? I'm asking specifically about this picture taken in the British Mandate of Palestine on November 14, 1938. The credit is given to "Fox Photos" but it's apparently owned by Getty Images. Is this picture considered public domain 78 years later? --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Getty has purchased many other photo archives over the years. Sometimes that includes public domain material which was simply collected, and sometimes they were archives of fully copyrighted works. Copyright can easily last 78 years and often much much longer, so you'd need some pretty decent external evidence for PD status. The image is credited on their site to "Fox Photos / Stringer" but I don't have much info on them. "Country of origin" is country of first publication, so even if it was taken in the British Mandate, if that was a UK news agency and first published in the UK, then the UK is the country of origin. If that is the case, copyright did expire for a few years but was restored in 1996; if the human photographer is known it is likely still copyrighted, and either way it would be copyrighted for 95 years from publication in the U.S. With a 70pma rule in many countries, it is very easy for images well over 100 years old to still be copyrighted. There are theoretical ways that the image above could be PD, but we would need some good evidence of where it was first published, if it even was at the time. But the odds are higher that it is still under copyright in at least the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to find more info on the photo's history, but it looks like this will not be considered PD. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
If you have evidence that it was published in UK in 1938, I think we should allow this. Copyright last for 50 years from the date of publication in this case, so it was in the public domain in 1996. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for example - traditional copyright on 3D art, CC photo

Hello. Can anyone please share an example of the following case:

  • 3-dimensional work with traditional copyright
  • someone photographs that work
  • the photographer applies a CC license to their photo
  • the copyright holder for the 3-dimensional work applies a CC license to the 2-dimensional representation in the photo
  • the copyright holder for the 3-dimensional work retains traditional copyright for the 3-dimensional work

I wish to see how Commons manages license templates.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If the copyright holder of a 3D works applies a CC licence to the photo of their work, it will automatically apply this licence to the 3D work itself. Ruslik (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I think there is strong disagreement on that. Copyright holders generally have wide latitude; I don't see why they can't license just the expression as seen in one photo. But I'm not sure we have an example. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The CC license allows derivative works, including 3D works, at least for the features visible in the photograph. --ghouston (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bluerasberry: One exemple can be a photo taken and uploaded by a Commons photographer, e.g. by me, with a CC license, of a sculpture displayed in France (no FoP in France) and with an OTRS ticket from the sculptor as permission for this photo and only this photo. Then your exemple is an OTRS ticket. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer What you are describing is what I want to see. Surely this has been done on Commons lots of times, right? I would like to see a live example of this on Commons.
Ruslik, Carl, Ghouston - thanks for comments. If you think of any example of this having been done on Commons then please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You will have an image with an OTRS ticket, no more. I don't understand why you think it will be different than for any other image with OTRS ticket. You have the name of the author, the permission (license) for the photo, and an OTRS ticket as for a lot of images...though if the author is not the uploader and if the source of the photo is not free you will need a second OTRS ticket from the author of the photo. But if you absolutely need an exemple, then image one of my files, e.g. this one with an OTRS ticket just below my will not have more with a true exemple. I do not understand what you think to be special despite the fact we don't manage to find an exemple. An OTRS ticket is visually just an OTRS ticket and will look as all the other tickets...even if the photo is tagged with "own work". Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer The example you give only has one copyright release and it is from you the photographer, so I did not make my request clear. I want to see an example of a photo with multiple copyright releases - one from the photographer for the photo and one from the sculptor for the work depicted in the photo. Also in this same example I want to see a note whether the sculptor says that the work is non-free and that other people are not allowed to take photos. Sorry for poor communication, but is that more understandable? Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Then your exemple requires two OTRS permissions, I guess there is nothing outstanding to see, one OTRS template will be above the other. Regarding the note from the sculptor I disagree, there is no need for such a note. An artwork is unfree until the permission is given by the owner, and a permission for a single specific photo explicitly send by mail is valid only for this single picture, all other images stay copyright violations. Our OTRS ticket are clear "This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose...", by "This work" that mean "this file" absolutely not the subject of the photo. Though I think it's possible that the sculptor give an explicit permission to allow all reproductions of his work, then we will made a customized template template including the license chosen by the sculptor and the OTRS permission. As exemple we have Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama, if we transpose we can imagine "This image include an artwork owned by MRsculptor. Permission is granted for anyone to copy, distribute and/or modify this image..." followed by the relevant OTRS permission.
    Otherwise, until it is not explicitly written by the owner, an OTRS permission is valid for one image, and there is no need for a note. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer I still would like to see an example. I do not know why you say, "there is no need for such a note". You post about freedom of panorama, so I think you know that in images like File:South_Bank_Circle_by_Richard_Long,_Tate_Liverpool.jpg there is always a note saying, "this work is not free, the photograph is only allowed because of freedom of panorama". Do you think those notes are unnecessary also? I want to see something similar, except instead of saying "this is okay because of freedom of panorama" I want it to say "this is okay because the sculptor gave permission". Consider this 1984 sculpture for example - File:Werner Stuerenburg 539c.jpg. Is the sculpture a 3D CC-By-SA work? Can anyone photograph this sculpture and post pictures on Commons? Are both the photo and the sculpture CC-By-SA? For that picture, I was expecting that the intent was to have a CC-By photograph but actually the artist probably has traditional copyright on the sculpture, but I do not know, and there is only one license tag. Do you have an opinion?
The Bollywood license template is a bit odd and not what I imagine.
What you describe as "his image include an artwork owned by MRsculptor..." is exactly what I want to see as an example. Have you ever seen an actual template like this? That is what I want to see. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarding our policies and regarding USA or UK laws, indeed they are unnecessary, as there is nothing legal those templates. The FoP relative templates are more informative they are not legally binding, only the license that applies to the material is really mandatory. File:South Bank Circle by Richard Long, Tate Liverpool.jpg is not more legal under the USA law because there is the template "Not-free-US-FOP", idem for the template "FoP-UK", the image is allowed because FoP in UK is ok, not because there is the template. If the file is allowed with those both templates it's because it is allowed without, legally at least...
    But yes of course, yes, it's a good thing to put informative templates on the file pages, I don't see why not. When I said "there is no need for such a note", I wanted to say "the absence of this note does not make the work of sculptor legaly free for everyone and for any purpose" just because he sent us permission for one photograph of his work. But I agree with you, in addition to the OTRS permission, a template (note) saying the work is unfree to be reproduced without a permission from the author and that we have this permission for this image and only for this image, may be indeed a good thing. If I ever see such a thing I will ping you. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Petition for FoP in France

No FoP in France? a law is currently discussed in France, sign a petition (in french) to advance the dialogue with french politicians [1]. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually signed that petition, even though I am not French. Now I get French emails which I don't understand... Poké95 03:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Thanks for your support, you can delete you from their mailing list, on the last or next mail you click on "vous désinscrire de ces e-mails" (English: unsubscribe from these emails) near the end (bottom) of the mail. This leads you to a web page which offers you to choose which emails you accept, to stop receiving any email, again near the bottom of the page, you click on "Ou bien se désinscrire de tous les e-mails de" (English:Or unsubscribe from all emails from
In those mails there are some explanations and some advertising for other petitions on the web site, the explanations are the politicians are going to change the law (currently no FoP) to FoP with no commercial reuse, Wikimedia France are fighting for they scratch the mention "no commercial", the petition is an argument to try to convince them. All help is always welcome. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me unsubscribe from their mailing list. :) Poké95 00:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Unpublished, anonymous photograph taken in France in the 1920s

Referring to, what is the US copyright status of an unpublished, anonymous photograph taken in France in the 1920s? Is it still under copyright in the US because unpublished, anonymous works have a copyright term of 120 years from the date of creation, or is it in the public domain in the US because it was in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996? Or does the date of 1 January 1996 only matter in the case of published works? --Rrburke (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

1996 only matters if a work had already entered the public domain -- the URAA might have restored the copyright. It did not cause works to become public domain. So if a work was unpublished, then its U.S. copyright was never lost, and yes would have a term of 120 years from creation if it is anonymous (and 70pma if the author was known). So yes, the URAA only matters for published works, since only published works could have entered the public domain in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
If the work was published anonymously before 1936, it is in the public domain in France and in USA (if published before 1923, see {{PD-1923}}, if published between 1923 and 1935 included, see {{PD-1996}}). If published only recently, there is a 25 years term in France from the date of publication. So URAA applies if published in 1971 or after. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of File:LFO official poster.jpg

Moved to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Regarding the removal of File:LFO official poster.jpg by Poké95 04:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: discussion was moved again, to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:LFO_official_poster.jpg. Storkk (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


This file is licensed as "own work", but I'm wondering if it should be treated as a derivative work instead. Aren't the logos of the en:National Baseball Hall of Fame and en:Toronto Blue Jays protected by copyright? en:File:NB HOF logo.png and en:File:Toronto Blue Jays logo.svg are being treated as non-free by English Wikipedia. The file also seems to be a re-upload of File:AlomarRetired.jpg which is also licensed as "own work", but also contains the same two (copyright protected) logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I think. Both logos look eligible for copyright, which makes this an unfree derivative work. --rimshottalk 06:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/File:JaysRetired12Banner.png. Yann (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Flags and coats of arms of municipalities of Venezuela

I found out that all pictures of flags and coats of arms of municipalities of Venezuela are on the public domain under the license

This image is in public domain in Venezuela because in accordance with:

The work has been liberated of any type of copyright and cannot be patented: because it represents a Flag, a Coat of arms or another ensign of the Republic, of the States or of the Municipalities and, in general, of any Venezuelan entity of public character;

Warning: it is necessary consider the following: The National Flag, and the Coat of arms of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela are the symbols of that nation, so must be respected by the Venezuelan people, and by the citizens of other countries. So, its use can´t be target of insults, fouls, disparagement or discrimination. The good faith of its use is presumed.

The texts of laws, decrees, official regulations, public treaties, judicial decisions and other official acts shall not be protected by this Law. The copyrights of author and his successors have expired after 60 years counted from January 1 of the year following from the first publication. Sixty years have passed since the death of the author.

It is a work made in collaboration, and sixty years have passed counted from January 1 of the year following that of the death of the last surviving coauthor.

The copyrights of the photographer and his successors became extinct because sixty years have passed from the first publication of the work.

Sixty years of its completion have passed and it was not published or registered during this period. The time referred to in this article was counted from January 1 of the year following the publication or the completion, respectively.

It is an anonymous or pseudonymous work, and sixty years have passed from the first publication or the completion of the work.

It is a photo made by a professional photographer, and it was a transfer object during a labor relationship or professional contract and the employer or contractor liberated it.

It is a made edition fifteen years ago, or it is an edition and fifteen years have passed without being published or registered. Also the original work was published sixty years counted from January 1 following from its first publication.

It is compared to the photos of the images printed on the audiovisual tapes, without constituting properly an audiovisual work and have passed sixty years counted from January 1 of the year following since the death of its author.

Deutsch | English | español | +/−


, so they were being wrongfully deleted.Andrés González (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither flags nor coats of arms of municipalities belong to the category of "laws, decrees, official regulations, public treaties, judicial decisions and other official acts". Ruslik (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
If a Venezuelan work is out of copyright in Venezuela under the provision mentioned in the template, does that automatically mean that the work is out of copyright in the US? If so, it would seem useful to edit the template to clarify that. If not, it might be useful to edit the template to indicate that a license tag for the US is also required (see {{PD-old-warning-text}}.) --Gazebo (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
They are official works you can't own copyright of official works, it says "and other official acts".Andrés González (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I feel I have been too harsh in my comments. Because I feel, I and many other users have been mistreated, I even quit wikipedia for 3 years, because I felt discouraged to contribute, since nobody seem to hear my position. I just want to call to the refletion, even in the case I don't find a law (I think I found it), it means doesn't deserve discussion?, we could agree to use for instance fair use and only upload small pictures. Andrés González (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The way {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} is written suggests that the copyright tag only covers text. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The law explicitly says The texts of laws, decrees, official regulations..., so it would appear that provision is limited to the literary works involved. If you know of a court decision that treated that clause more liberally, that would be interesting, but short of that we would interpret that to only pertain to the text of such works. This is pretty common in copyright laws; it is much less common to list "symbols" among the unprotectable works although a few countries do (but Venezuela does not seem to be one of them). Now... we do follow Commons:Coats of arms, such that each drawing of a coat of arms or flag is generally considered an independent copyrightable work, and not derivative of the general design. So, we would not accept graphics copied from government websites, but if they were user-drawn and licensed freely, those should be acceptable. It's possible there were some works wrongly deleted, but in general we don't take people's artwork off of websites (even government websites) without it being licensed. This is true in the U.S. as well -- state government works are mostly copyrighted, so we've had to find specific drawings done by others which are either PD or licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Naval Reserve Command.jpg

File is licensed as "own work", but this seem highly unlikely. Should this be {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} instead? There's a local version of the same file (en:File:Naval Reserve Command.jpg) uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free. If the licensing of the Commons' file is correct, there's really no need for a non-free version. No source is given for the non-free version, but it looks like it the logo is official based upon this Facebook page and this archived version of the organization's official website. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There are larger versions out there, like here, so it's definitely not "own work". PD-PhilippinesGov would make the most sense. The subject of copyright for Philippine Government works is odd due to weird clauses in their law -- it looks like Commons and en-wiki have come down on different sides of that fence on how to interpret it. But, for our current policy, that tag would apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I asked the Copyright Division of the National Library of the Philippines to clarify what is the copyright status of the works of my government. I will wait for them to reply on email. Poké95 01:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian photo from the 1920s

File:Marcus Simaika Pasha 1864-1944.jpg is a photo taken in Egypt some time in the 1920s. The date of the photographer's death is not known. It was not published until its inclusion in a book published in New York in 2005. I presume it remains copyrighted for 120 years p.m.a. That correct? --Rrburke (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

For first published in the US after 2002, the chart says 70 years p.m.a., if I'm reading it right. It doesn't say anything for anonymous works published after that date, but I suppose the 120 years from creation also hold for that case. In the first case, we don't know whether copyright has expired, for the second case it won't be free before the 2040s. --rimshottalk 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
That chart says for "Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known" is 120 years from creation (not pma). If you can find the author's life dates, then it's 70pma. Once past 2002, the publication date does not matter for this work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Exempting "simple" toys from copyright concerns

There is a recurring rationale for soft toys that are not obvious merchandise, like say Mickey Mouse, and otherwise appear "simple", to be excepted from the normal interpretation for toys given in COM:TOYS. This normal interpretation is that we follow the precautionary principle and unless a mass produced toy can be argued to be below the threshold of originality, we require evidence that it is not under copyright. The latter would be the case for homemade knitted figures where the photographer was the creator, or very old toys that can be shown as having expired copyright, such as toys you might photograph in a museum.

I welcome more feedback at the example deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg as there is an opportunity to change Commons:Derivative works to allow for us to define "simple toys" and allow all photographs of simple toys to be hosted on Commons even when above the threshold of originality. Thanks -- (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

PD status of Los Angeles County / DC department of health posters

Both California and D.C. government works are likely PD... would posters marked "Patrocinado por el Departmento de Salud del Condado de Los Angeles" or "Pagado por el D.C. Departamento de Servicios Humanos de la Oficina del Comisionado de Salud Publica" be considered government works, and thus PD? Storkk (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: Only works of the US Federal government are automatically Public Domain per {{PD-USGov}}. Works of the Washington DC government are considered US Government works for copyright purposes per Government outside of states, so you could use {{PD-USGov}} on those. {{PD-CAGov}} only covers works by the state government, not county government, and Los Angeles Country does claim copyright over their website. Therefore, the Los Angeles County publications are likely not PD. {{PD-CAGov}} claims that works of local agencies are public domain, so the Los Angeles County example should qualify to use that tag. --Ahecht (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was my line of thinking also... except for CAGov I'm not sure what "involved in the governmental process" means, and whether or not it's salient. Also, does "Patrocinado por" and "Pagado por" in this context likely mean that they are the copyright holder? Storkk (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

War photo and diary (1943)

  • This photo is made August 1943, Messina, Sicily, in photographer's parlour (see the description below). Would it be correct to apply {{PD-Italy}} here? Some other PD template? Not in PD yet? --NeoLexx (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The diary and letters of the same person (KIA 1943) have been made publicly available (I don't know if it constitutes "published") in 2002 by his nephew at BBC site. What would be the copyright status of the texts? And who is the current copyright owner if not in PD yet? --NeoLexx (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Sky Horizon.jpg

Is File:Sky Horizon.jpg a copyright violation? It sounds like the sculpture was donated to the National Institutes of Health, a part of the Federal Government of the United States. The picture was also taken by the National Institutes of Health. Does this put the sculpture in the public domain, or is it like most other artwork/sculptures where they will fall under copyright as well as any pictures of the artwork? Elisfkc (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  • {{PD-USGov}} requires that the sculptor was an employee of the United States Government, which doesn't seem to be the case here. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2: got it. So since the sculptor was Louise Nevelson, who did not work for the government and did not die 70 years ago, it's a copyright violation, correct? Elisfkc (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The government can also place something in the public domain if they own the rights. If it was truly donated, this is not a clear-cut issue. It should not be speedyable. FoP stuff also should not be a speedy tag in general; use a regular DR. I don't think there was a copyright notice on the statue, but it looks like it was dedicated between 1978 and 1989, so public display was not publication. It's more a matter if the NIH has the rights to publish the picture under that license -- they might. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


Surely this company logo is copyrighted and does not belong on Commons? The current use of it on English Wikipedia can definitely be said to be fair use. The user who uploaded it said it was their own work, but that seems to be false since it is a company logo. In veritas (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Might be {{PD-textlogo}}, but would not be "own work" most likely. Some users confuse the labor of cropping / uploading as owning a work, which is incorrect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I am thinking not though because the P seems to be more advanced than a simple geometric shape, but I am not sure. In veritas (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, I found the source and think {{Textlogo}} could well apply as the P is just made up of some curved shapes filled in. If you disagree move it to the enwiki as non-free. Ww2censor (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I will update the page now with {{Textlogo}}. In veritas (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 03:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Indian Head, Maryland.png

Any guess as to what File:Indian Head, Maryland.png is supposed to be? I noticed it after it was added to en:Talk:Indian Head, Maryland. A Google image search got a hit for a music video posted to YouTube for en:Natasha Bedingfield and the image looks like a screenshot from the 3:09-3:15 mark. I can't see how this can be "own work". Should it be tagged with {{Copyvio}} or {{No permission since}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Either works ;-) Maybe "No permission" just in case the uploader is a representative of the video owner, but given the nonsensical description I would sort of doubt that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Clindberg. I tagged the file with "No permssion since" just to give the uploader time to send a verification email to OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 03:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Movement for Defence of Voters' Rights Golos Logo.png

I have uploaded this file, which is the logo of the Russian nonprofit election monitoring group.

The entire website of the group is licensed under CC-BY 4.0, and as far as I can see, the logo does not have any exception attached. However, as this is an organization logo, I want to make sure that I am not running into some legal issues I am not aware of. Is the current licensing okay, or would it be more appropriate to use the file under pd-textlogo or fair use? – Anetek (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The license is ok but you probably should add {{Trademark}} template. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 03:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Can the copyright status of this image be checked?

The image of comics artist Trevor McCarthy, TREVOR MCCARTHY 3.jpg, is described as a "DC promotional photo", both on its Commons page and in the Wikipedia article in which it is used--"DC" being a reference to DC Comics, the publisher for whom McCarthy has worked, which is a part of Warner Bros. However, it was uploaded not by someone identifying themselves as representing DC Comics or Warner Bros, but an an editor calling themselves Tmcc112, whose upload of that image in 2013 was the only edit he/she ever made. This could've been McCarthy himself, someone acting on his behalf, or someone who wishes to convey that appearance. I've edited Wikipedia comics articles since 2005, and this includes illustrating countless creator articles with photos I take myself and free-license, and no other DC Comics creator, to my knowledge, is represented in their WP article by such promotional images, which in all likelihood, would be the property of DC/Warner Bros, and not McCarthy. Can we confirm that the copyright to that photo is indeed owned by Tmcc112? Nightscream (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to contact User:Tmcc112? Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I figured you guys here are the experts on this sorta thing, so I brought it here. Nightscream (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I tagged the file as "no permission". I doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder of the image, as it is a promotional photo. Poké95 03:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 03:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright of a derivative of a CC licensed image on Commons

Just checking whether I need to add any further info for File:Glamorgan Heritage Coast, Vale of Glamorgan - location map.png, which I created as a derivative of File:Vale of Glamorgan UK relief location map.jpg. It appears File:Vale of Glamorgan UK relief location map.jpg allows adaptation, I've adapted the map for the purposes of the en:Glamorgan Heritage Coast Wikipedia article. I've no great desire to be credited for this adaption, but I don't want to 'step on the toes' of Ordnance Survey etc. Any suggestions? Sionk (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You can add {{Derived from}} template to the source field. Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Done, also the opposite {{derivative versions}} on the source and the SVG. –Be..anyone 💩 20:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 03:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal IRC Office Hours on Freedom of Panorama

What: IRC chat with members of Wikimedia Foundation legal
Topic: Freedom of panorama
When: Tuesday, April 19 at 11:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time / 18:00 UTC at #wikimedia-office webchat
See announcement for details.
--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Thanks for the info. Read a bit about the context on the mailing list and after a while ended up at meta:EU policy/FoP Consultation. That looks important, considering Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015 … --El Grafo (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Office hours already finished. Poké95 01:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Lambda Sigma Gamma Crest.jpeg

This file is licensed as "copyleft" under the "free art license", but according the the sourced website for the file ( all content is "Copyright © 1997-2016 Lambda Sigma Gamma Sorority, Inc. - All Rights Reserved". This seems to contradict the licensing of the file. Does there have to be some indication on the source website that it's content is "copyleft"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Tagged as copyvio. I don't think the website says that their logo is licensed under FAL. OTRS permission is needed. Thanks, Poké95 04:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 04:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


File is claimed as own work, but it looks like it comes from here or here. Should this be tagged with {{No permission since}} or {{Copyvio}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd try the former, two different uploaders, the 2nd uploader might be able to fix it. –Be..anyone 💩 11:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion Be..anyone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 01:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

is this image out of copyright?

Can this portrait be uploaded to Commons (say, with PD-old license)? Thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 1748 is old enough, outside of fiction {{PD-old-100}}. –Be..anyone 💩 19:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thx. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 01:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Request approval of Flickr CC 2.0 image

Can anyone approve a Flickr image under CC 2.0 Generic if all its terms are met? See this image. I would appreciate any review. --Light show (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  •   Info: Google Image Search returned several sources of the image prior to the uploading to Commons (most of the non-free). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oldest found by TinEye is 2014-03-13, if flickr is older or the uploader is the photographer you are good for a {{flickrreview}} request on the page where you have uploaded it here. The flickr review bot needs about five minutes for a review. –Be..anyone 💩 17:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Photo is on Getty images here; it is by a Jason Merritt. The Flickr author is Greg "Papa" Razzi, clearly a pseudonym but it's unclear if that is in fact Jason Merritt, or just someone who collects that type of of photo. The Flickr stream has a lot of that type of photo, so either situation is possible. Might want to research other photos on the stream -- if they have some by other photographers, it's definitely all a Flickrwash, if not... then it's possible it's a valid license but we may want more detailed confirmation that they are the same person. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Palau postage stamps

Are postal stamps subject typically copyrighted? I am asking because of File:2GreyCancelations.jpg and File:PalauStamps.jpg being used in en:Postage stamps and postal history of Palau. Both files are being claimed as "own work" which seems to be a mistake. I think the uploader may most likely purchased the stamps, but I don't believe purchasing implies a transfer of copyright. There is {{PD-Palau}}, but I'm not sure that can be applied to these after reading through the template's description since the stamps do not appear old enough to qualify. Should this be tagged with {{No permission since}}, taken to COM:DR or just left as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Like currency, the copyright rules regarding postage stamps vary from country to country. Palau's copyright act of 2003 doesn't appear to mention stamps or non-textual government works at all, so they are likely copyrighted until 50 years after the designer's death. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether File:PalauStamps.jpg would have a copyright independent of the works on which those stamps are based, which are probably PD-old. I'm also unsure about File:2GreyCancelations.jpg as the non-textual parts of the logos are possibly PD as well. Storkk (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Image of train cab and railroad signage

I want to upload some photos I took for wikipedia:en:Punktförmige_Zugbeeinflussung.

  • One is a photo of a train driving cab, taken through the driving cab's door. Would it be allowed on Commons? (I'm not sure if inside of the train would be considered a "public place".)
    • In the photo there is a note to drivers about locations and aspects of signals. Would including that in the photo be a problem?
  • Another is a photo of the outside the train with a sign, taken from the terminal station. Would that be considered a public place?

Kakurady (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if those places are public or not: there isn't anything copyrightable in the sceneries you've described. Neither the cab, nor the note, nor the layout of the signalisation is a protected intellectual work, because it's below a needed threshold of originality - at least in Germany, given that you gave a link to a German subject, I guess that you're talking about German trains and stations. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Disinfectant software icon

Would this B&W icon for the Disinfectant antivirus software be copyrightable in the US? --Gazebo (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In my humble opinion it is above the threshold of originality. Ruslik (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. The English Wikipedia article for Disinfectant is using a color icon (which is very likely copyrighted and also more modern than a B&W icon); however, the English WP does allow non-free content (including software icons) in certain circumstances.
Another question on icons: Would this icon for the MORE software be copyrightable in the US? --Gazebo (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Any thoughts on the second icon? --Gazebo (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This one is {{Pd-textlogo}} Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Once again, thanks for the feedback. The second icon has been uploaded as File:MORE-software-1.1c-icon.png. --Gazebo (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 10:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Image rights

Hi, sorry if this is an obvious one but I'm not really that clued in for the licensing of pictures. There are pictures of a footballer HERE and HERE. I was wondering if I can upload them for use in the same way that the picture in THIS link is allowed? Thanks Kosack (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If you don't know who the author is, you really can't say it's been 70 years since their death the way that image does. But, a UK army photograph would be {{PD-UKGov}}, and other photos *might* qualify for {{PD-UK-unknown}} (and {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-URAA}} for the U.S. side of things). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Kosack (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 03:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


There appears to be a licensing/copyright infringement as File:HEC HD10700e.jpg, the source of the image (from PHL/HEC) licenses the image as a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (see here), while the license of listed here on Wikimedia is the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Should it be tagged {{Copyvio}}, {{No permission since}} or just simply deleted? Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I tagged it as {{Copyvio}}, since I don't think the uploader is a representative or anything of that website. The image may be restored when OTRS permission is received from the copyright holder. Thanks, Poké95 04:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I will write to the author for a permission via OTRS (for the wikimedia projects), thanks for the maintaining.--Manlleus (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Note this image applies here too File:HEC HD10700f.jpg Davidbuddy9 Talk  00:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I tagged the other image as "no permission", since the uploader said that they will ask permission from the copyright holder. Thanks for cooperating, Poké95 01:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Approval request for Sophia Loren drawing

I've come across some drawings by U.S. artist Nicholas Volpe with a copyright notice of 1962, including this one of Sophia Loren. A thorough copyright search using every parameter found nothing either filed or renewed by him. His drawings of other stars had the same copyright notice date. Are these OK? --Light show (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Appended: Here's one of Katharine Hepburn, with a reverse side description.--Light show (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There's also a self-drawing of the artist in this one-off 1962 collection of his drawings. I'd like to add it to his bio. --Light show (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
But please remain orderly when responding, as I sense a line of editors planning to comment on this issue. --Light show (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
If there is a copyright notice in the first place, that gives you a definite year and name to search on. A 1962 copyright would have its renewal on If it's not there, and it's a U.S. work, then it would seem to be OK. If he had for example renewed a book which contained his drawings, that would cover it (so you can't just search artistic work renewals), but if there is nothing on the name at all, it would seem to be fine. If someone does come up with a renewal entry which does cover it, or has a good chance of doing so, then we'd reconsider. It wouldn't hurt to mention the names you looked for as part of the documentation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. There are no works of any sort with his name since at least 1978 (online limit). I searched under most parameters, although the keyword search for his name would have included everything. His drawings, as far as I found, had only been reprinted in the 1962 collection linked above. It seems he only worked on commissions for his drawings and besides that one-off collection never reprinted them. --Light show (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File:"Every now. And again." 2011, Hammer Museum, Los Angeles, CA ink on wall.jpg

I presume that because this is a photograph of a 3d artwork, the photograph is entitled to a separate copyright for the photographer, Brian Forrest. However the copyright holder of the underlying work asserts that she instructed him on the angle and composition of the shot. Does that make any difference to who the copyright-holder of the photograph is? --Rrburke (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would almost certainly make her at least co-owner of the copyright in the photograph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
But Brian Forrest's permission would still be required? The copyright holder of the underlying work appears to be asserting that she can license the photograph without seeking his permission. --Rrburke (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe. If the instructions were explicit enough such that he had no real creative input to the framing, angle, lighting, etc., (i.e. just provided the technical skill) then she would be the sole owner. Or if the contract between them specifies one way or another, that would probably rule, and we would have no way of knowing those details. If there are conflicting claims between the photographer and artist, it would probably be a COM:PRP situation, but if the artist claims all rights and the photographer doesn't contest it, that may be good enough. U.S. copyright law does have a stipulation that you only need one of the co-owners of copyright for a non-exclusive license, but need all of them for exclusive licenses. Technically this is a non-exclusive license but I'm not sure the law contemplated something like a "free" license which would have a definite affect on other co-owners ability to make further licenses. So, a deletion would be guessing on that legal angle too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Spanish photographs

Someone has brought up a clause in Spanish copyright. It is as such:

Artículo 128. De las meras fotografías.

Quien realice una fotografía u otra reproducción obtenida por procedimiento análogo a aquélla, cuando ni una ni otra tengan el carácter de obras protegidas en el Libro I, goza del derecho exclusivo de autorizar su reproducción, distribución y comunicación pública, en los mismos términos reconocidos en la presente Ley a los autores de obras fotográficas.

Este derecho tendrá una duración de veinticinco años computados desde el día 1 de enero del año siguiente a la fecha de realización de la fotografía o reproducción.

(Personal translation)

Article 128. Simple photographs.

Whoever shall create [take] a photograph or other reproduction produced by a method analogous to that, when neither one nor the other has the character of works protected in Book I, shall enjoy the exclusive right to authorize reproduction, distribution, and public communication, under the same terms recognized in this Act to the authors of photographic works.

This right shall last twenty-five years calculated from the January 1st of the year following the date of creation of the photograph or reproduction.

Have we somehow missed that Spain has a photograph exemption for this long? Or have we previous rejected this interpretation? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's mentioned at Commons:Simple photographs, but without any examples, we might assume it's the same as Germany -- when the EU directive was implemented, virtually all photos (other than say X-rays) became copyrightable and were restored to a longer term. That might make older photographs 70pma though instead of 80pma. Is there any legislative history surrounding that term? Especially since 1995? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's a judicial decision from 2011:
El motivo se desestima porque este Tribunal considera correcta la doctrina aplicada por la resolución recurrida, de modo que, bien la falta de originalidad, o bien la de creatividad, privan a la fotografía de la condición de obra fotográfica (art. 10.1.h LPI), y consecuentemente de los derechos de autor, y la degradan a la condición de mera fotografía con la protección de propiedad intelectual limitada del art. 128 LPI.

El criterio expuesto es conforme a la noción de "creación original" del art. 10.1 de la LPI, que cabe entender como " originalidad creativa ", cuya interpretación, que resulta reforzada por la referencia de la Disposición adicional décima de la Ley de Protección Jurídica del Diseño Industrial, Ley 20/2003, de 7 de julio, "a grado de creatividad y de originalidad necesario" para ser protegido como obra artística, es la posición común de la doctrina, y, además, es especialmente relevante en materia fotográfica para distinguir las creaciones artísticas -obras fotográficas- de las meras fotografías.

The plea is dismissed because this Court considers correct the doctrine applied by the contested resolution, so that, although the lack of originality, or of creativity, deprive the photograph of the condition of photographic work (art. 10.1.h LPI), and consequently of copyright, and reduce the condition to a simple photograph with the protection of limited intellectual property of art. 128.

The criterion set forth is consistent with the notion of "original creation" from art. 10.1 of the LPI, which can be understood as "creative originality", whose interpretation, which is reinforced by the reference to the tenth additional Provision to the Law on Legal Protection of Industrial Design, Law 20/2003, of July 7, "a degree of creativity and of originality necessary" to be protected as an artistic work, is the common position of the doctrine, and, additionally, is especially relevant in the photographic material to distinguish the artistic creations (photographic works) from simple photographs.


Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I wish that source described the photographs in question, but it does appear that that court ruled the EU directive did not really change the criteria they had before, and it *sounds* like the criteria is more based on the creativity in the execution of the photograph (i.e. was it a standard technique, or something more showing the personality of the photographer), and not necessarily what the photograph depicts. The author was arguing a moral rights violation but since it was not a "work", there were no moral rights, even though the 25-year protection may have still existed, as there was a contract for the right of distribution. Might be closer to the Swiss situation then. BTW, the 1987 Spanish law had a 20 year term for simple photographs, with similar wording. That was increased to 25 in 1995, but I'm not sure that was retroactive since they would not be "works", which could also affect URAA status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
After further input from my Spanish source,[2] I have created a template: Template:PD-Spain-photo. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You also have the difficulty of showing that each file is free under US copyright. --ghouston (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep. It sounds like they would at least need to be from before 1975 to avoid the URAA. Even if you ignore the URAA, obviously anything from March 1, 1989 or later would still have a US copyright regardless. So the 1991 date won't be useful for Commons. From the ruling, it might be helpful to have a translation of these paragraphs somewhere in the docs, which seem to give a little bit of guidance:
Y lo mismo cabe decir, o con más razón todavía, de la Sentencia de 29 de marzo de 1.996 que alude "al carácter artístico de la reproducción [en realidad representación] fotográfica, que los usos sociales y la ley sólo estiman concurrente cuando el fotógrafo incorpora a la obra el producto de su inteligencia, un hacer de carácter personalísimo que trasciende de la mera reproducción de la imagen de una persona bella...", y que incluso se refiere más adelante, en texto no transcrito en el motivo, a la "labor de creación e ideación artística en el hacer del fotógrafo".
La creatividad supone la aportación de un esfuerzo intelectual, -talento, inteligencia, ingenio, invectiva, o personalidad que convierte a la fotografía en una creación artística o intelectual-. La singularidad no radica en el objeto fotográfico, ni siquiera en la mera corrección técnica, sino en la fotografía misma, en su dimensión creativa.
Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been discussed for long: see here, for instance. The fact is that the Spanish legislator has been unable to provide clear-cut statements about what originality is. Therefore, it seems quite unrealistic to claim that here in commons we're able to decide what a mere photography is. --Discasto talk 15:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Nazi Germany images

Hi, I looked a bit, but did not find the clue. What about Nazi Germany images? If the photographer is known and known to be dead for >70 years (fell in the end of the war), then normal PD-70 rules apply. But if the photographer is unknown or the image is marked as own (which in case of these images just means the same), the PD-100 rule should apply and these images are still copyrighted. Or is there an exception to copyright law imposed by the winners of WW II on nazi material? Curious. Some examples will follow, help is appreciated, but speedy deletion also is.

unknown authorship would allow {{EU-anonymous}}? But {{own}} would tend to be a case of speedy deletion? I just checked the uncategorized first image and Category:Adolf Hitler, so matches are obvious. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

These images can not be {{Own}} because this template is only used if the uploader owns the copyright, which is highly unlikely. Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no official PD-100 rule on Commons. Just a best guess on the copyright status, with no significant doubts. Normally, if there is a known author (just without a known death date), 100 years old is not old enough for a 70pma country. If we think a photo was indeed published at the time anonymously though, then {{PD-EU-anon-70}} can apply. That could result in the keeping of such photos. But, that is different than "unknown" -- we'd need to be fairly sure it was published without author credit (which could very much be the case for Nazi government images though some photographers are known). I would not speedy them. A couple of those are basically the same as File:Adolf Hitler cropped restored.jpg ; that seems to have a possible additional permission. Those two might be deletable as duplicates. If there are lots of matches on Google search, that would seem to mean the image is well known, and the photographer should be researchable -- and if some museums etc. have the image but also don't know who the photographer is, that might be enough evidence for anonymous status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
A source like "wikimedia commons" probably means there is another version around here -- and indeed, File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1990-1002-500, Besuch von Hitler und Goebbels bei der UFA retouched.jpg would seem to be it. The smaller dups can certainly be speedied, if they are not a different crop. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
sorry, I tried to find it (not that hard), as I suspected the same reason, but was not successful. thanks for finding. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Getty Images credits File:Koko1941.jpg to Heinrich Hoffmann (1885-1957). As he was a court photographer of sorts, any of the heroic portrait images are likely to be made by him. --rimshottalk 21:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
We got some licensed versions of Hoffman photographs via the Bundesarchiv contributions, but I don't see that one offhand, which means it would be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, if somebody uploads an image as own, and it is obviously not, should we do the work and find the photographer, the year, etc? Or should we delete the images as this is some kind of copy fraud, we do not tolerate from other platforms either (if we get it). There is no exception from the game (of correct licensing). The uploader should do the work. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's INUSE or has proper categories please use an ordinary DR; maybe somebody else (incl. the uploader, of course) finds a way to fix the issue. –Be..anyone 💩 04:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a collaborative project; anyone can do the work. Some may have the skills to find the images, someone else may be better at finding attribution and figuring out licensing. Normally with "own work" uploads, the copyright owner has a lot more information than anyone else can have, so yes the burden is generally on them. With obviously not-own-work stuff like this, everyone is basically equal -- we can all do the research if we want. Deletion requests would be a valid action to be sure, but if material might be public domain, it helps the project more to find out if we can keep it and just fix the licensing instead (other than duplicates of course). If nobody wants to do the work, sure, they should probably be deleted -- so mark them for regular deletion if you found them this way and don't want to do any research (which is indeed better than leaving them alone). That at least gives several other people some opportunity to search themselves if they are so inclined. But in many cases, Nazi photos are not obvious copyvios (even if "own work" is obviously wrong) so I would not speedy them unless the author is known. Speedy deletion also means basically just one other person (typically an overburdened administrator) will be given a chance to do the research, while a regular DR will give anyone looking over the deletion pages a chance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
collaboration IMHO starts with the collaboration of the uploader and the original description and categorization of images. Descriptions like ckoms or koko the gorilla in 1941 do witness the lack of collaboration more than its presence. And we are flooded with such images. Just my 2cents. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  Comment I deleted a few images, and blocked two of the accounts, one as "vandalism only account" [3], one as "inappropriate username". Regards, Yann (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Special:Undelete needs admin rights, unlike Special:Log/Yann. Be..anyone 💩 15:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Images from the EU website

Hello. On the website of the European Parliament, I have found this copyright notice: "As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words '© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament' or '© European Union, [year(s)] – EP' ) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it." Is it acceptable for an import on Commons? If yes, should not we create an appropriate licence template? Thank you for your help. BrightRaven (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up before, e.g. here and here. --Magnus (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I see. I started a deletion request for images from this website. BrightRaven (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


File is licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5", but the sourced website states "All Content and Material ©2013 Jonathan Baldwin". I tagged to file with {{No permission since}} and tried to notify the uploader as instructed, but the uploader has been indefinitely banned from Commons. Not sure who to notify in such cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Originally uploaded on en-wiki on May 14, 2006 by a user "Hungrygeneration". That may have predated OTRS and be grandfathered. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Clindberg. Hungrygeneration hasn't edited since 2009 and they do not have a Commons account, so no way to post the notice on their user talk. As for COM:GOF, I was not aware of that since it was way before my time. Do you suggest removing the "no permission since" tag? I believe I found the actual source for the photo here. The username "hungrygeneration" is the same as the url address, so there is a good chance they are connected. The Wikipedia article en:International House of Prayer was created in 2004, and the photo was added in May 2006. Does it matter that the photo was not added to Commons until June 2008 (well after OTRS was set up)? Does it matter that the photo was added to Commons by a user who has been globally indef'd by the WMF? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The move to Commons in 2008 does not matter -- that was just a simple file transfer of a licensed file. It does look like OTRS was being set up and separate permission was starting to be requested by the time it was originally uploaded. The file definitely existed on the internet before being uploaded, but it's likely it was self-promotion in writing the article, so most likely uploaded by someone involved. I don't think there is anyone to notify, unless you want to contact someone at the website. I don't think it's an obvious copyvio -- I think I'd probably send it to a regular DR at the very least. Good chance it's OK but by current rules would warrant a DR, but I can't remember if we instituted the "previously existed on the internet" rule at the time (OTRS was initially for situations where it was obvious we needed external permission, though the internet thing didn't take long). Up to you. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I removed the "No permission" yesterday after reading your reply and cited this VP thread in my edit sum. Maybe someone who jumps to the same conclusions that I did will see it in the edit history and look for this in the VP archives for reference. Thanks again for all the info. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I want to note that a statement like "All Content and Material ©2013 Jonathan Baldwin" does not imply that the file is not under a free license. This statement only means that the copyright belongs to Jonathan Baldwin, who as the copyright owner can license it as he sees fit. In fact, the existence of a copyright is a necessary condition for any file to be licensed as public domain works can not be. I find it really strange that as soon as people see @ symbol they automatically think that something is wrong with the file, which, is of course, not true. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Thanks for info. See my reply to Clindberg above for more specifics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 10:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:M.2 and mSATA SSDs comparison.jpg Licensing Incorrect

Hi, the image File:M.2 and mSATA SSDs comparison.jpg is incorrectly licensed. It was placed under CC BY-SA by someone who wasn't the owner and doesn't have the authority to do. As the owner of the image I am happy to release it under CC BY, but I do not know the process for getting this changed here on Wikimedia to reflect the proper source and license.

The current version of the image in the commons is taken from However they are not the owner of the image; they took the file from my site, and did not properly cite us in the process. Ergo they cannot release it under CC BY-SA.

The original photo can be found on my site, .

As the owner of the image I am happy to release it under CC BY. I'm merely looking for correct attribution and I don't want to screw up pages that already use this image. Could someone please direct me through the process here to get this taken care of? RyanSmith AT (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the licensing here is obviously invalid, and the file is a low resolution version. Would you be able to send permission using the form at COM:OTRS? (or --ghouston (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Form sent. RyanSmith AT (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  Permission confirmed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 10:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Consistency in copyright cases

Hi, There are several copyright related DRs open with close issues (mainly involving COM:DM and COM:DW). It strikes me that the same user argues for a keep in one case, and for a delete in another. It would be best if arguments are consistent across requests, instead of being given according some dubious interests... See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Les peluches font du géocaching - Toulouse.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:All Nippon Airways Pokemon Jet JA8956.jpg. If plushes are a copyright violation, I don't see why Pokemons, even painted on an airplane, wouldn't be. Other similar cases below. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Those are different types of derivative works... for the planes, the characters are on the plane by permission, and the question is at that point is it a copyright violation to sell pictures of the planes. Undoubtedly Getty has many such images; I'm not sure a copyright case has been ruled on that situation. We have had similar difficulties with characters as balloons in parades, etc. -- undoubtedly there are many commercial photographs of the parade; I'm not sure that such photos are legally derivative -- the photographer was taking photos of the parade without really having control over the participants in the parade, and such uses may be "incidental", such as the label on a bottle in the Ets-Hokins decision -- the photo was of the entire bottle. At some point courts have to balance the rights of photographers. They are in a gray area for sure, but keeps are defensible. The photo is of the entire plane, and not focusing on the artwork on part of the plane. On the other photo, someone lined up some toys and took a photograph of them. There was no partial permission involved in that case, they are not incidental, and we do have several cases of photos focused on particular toys being ruled derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, using examples from the rest of the Internet is quite meaningless. Most of the world, including France, ignores in practice that there is no FoP, at least for social medias, and all non-commercial uses. I am yet to see a court case about something published on the Internet. AFAIK, all court cases are about about images published on paper. So the law is not applied as it is written. In practice, it is as if there were an exception for Internet publication, which doesn't help much to define a policy here.
My issue here is that it seems that we have different standards according to what support the work is on, what is the subject of the images, and who is closing the DRs. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Those uses would fall under "fair use" in the U.S. -- so yes, many times particular uses are OK. I'm talking about commercial uses, as those are most likely to be copyright violations and those are the ones where people file lawsuits. I'm not sure we have run across a case which called photos of a plane like that a copyright violation, even though news agencies are directly selling them. There are also a U.S. court cases (Ets Hokins and one other) which basically say that taking a picture of a utilitarian object is not derivative of artwork or labels which happen to be on that object, unless the photo is focusing on those elements. The plane is a bit more extreme example, but it may not be over the line -- in that case, the court ruled that just the primary focus could qualify as the "underlying work" and any other elements which happen to be there are not derivative -- even for commercial uses. The line will always be hard to quantify, but it's still defensible that such photos are "free", as there is some legal backing to that theory, more than just "some people on the internet do it". On the other hand, the photos of the toys seem different -- and there are cases where photos directly of that type of product were deemed derivative works, legally. We are trying to divine the lines that copyright law would allow in basically all situations -- if there is a court decision which better define things in France, that would be helpful. France did have a "theory of the accessory" ruling which was very similar to the "incidental" U.S. ruling -- but the main subject of this photo would seem to be of the toys, so it'd be hard to argue that. I am generally loathe to delete stuff where there is no legal precedent for being a copyright violation, but photos of sculptural toys is not one of those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Carl's summary is reasonable. There are a few prior deletions/keeps out of alignment with current policy, and I encourage active contributors to push for better casebooks for DM and TOO definitions, including "simple plushies", just as I have done, if they do not find policy and guidelines clear enough. -- (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Yann: This thread is a direct complaint about me even though my account name is "hidden", please raise future direct complaints like this on AN/U and notify me using the standard process. I do not appreciate your hounding of me in covert ways, it is a form of sniping. If you are serious about finding a way to have my account sanctioned or blocked, then present a case with evidence that I can respond to, expect to independently reviewed and have the opportunity to present the timeline of your very long pattern of inappropriate battleground behaviour. You appear unable to distinguish me from Russavia, and your cyber-bullying and hounding is not healthy for me or this project.

Please take this request seriously. Leave me alone to make my contributions in peace. This includes using your administrator powers against my account, my upload projects, or closing deletion requests I have raised. Your pattern of behaviour, such as the personal attack made in recently closing one of the above deletion requests, shows a personal interest and emotional hostility that makes your use of any sysop rights against me in any form completely inappropriate. Thanks -- (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Info for others, it's a valid question: 1, 2. –Be..anyone 💩 23:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Yann: Hello, "plushies" and "many Pokémon in an airplane" are different. Also, to correct you, the plural of Pokémon is Pokémon. Thanks, Poké95 04:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Even those two might be reasonable -- if the toys were set up by someone else and the photographer was just documenting what was there on the table, the presence of the toys might well be considered "incidental". However, I don't think that is the same thing as de minimis, so it would be a bad example for that term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment For info, I just deleted several photos of aircrafts with drawings on its (exemple). The designs on these planes were frescoes, each times, composed and arranged voluntary and artisticly. Every figurines were of course protected, but the final result, the assembly of figurines, is also a work of art full and then also is protected. A photo focused on such airplane is the same thing of a photo focused on the drawing which is, by its design, impossible to dissociate from the airplane. Then a photo focused on an artwork not free is de facto not free until a permission from the copyright owner. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Do we have a copyright case we can point to as an example? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Christian Ferrer: please can you add some explanatory text to your reclosures of those aircraft image deletion discussions - it looks like you are just directly contradicting the conclusion of another administrator implying that if one wants an image deleted you just need to shop around admins until you find one who agrees with you, regardless of the community consensus. I only found this discussion (which sort of explains things, but not completely) by looking at what links here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No I did not discuss with the previous closing adminstrators, indeed. This is one of the deleted image, I'm wonder what legal exception can make this image ok for commercial reuse. The artwork is not a single Pokemon, I don't care about trademarks here, it's the whole artwork wich is in full frame. With birds instead of pokemons, it would have been the same for me.
    It is a fact, and in our policies, that all the works are not free until there is an explicite evidence or exception for why they are free (publication under a free license, FoP, PD old work enough, permission via OTRS...) , not the opposite. If someone is interested by the opinion(s) of the previous closing administrator(s), feel free to ping and to ask them. Me I did not, because I don't see how I can be convinced there is "no valid reason for deletion". A full frame image on an airplane completely covered with a piece of art is a full frame image of a piece of art, it's all. And it is called a DW of this piece of art. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Firstly see COM:UA, and after that you can play to search the "pictorial feature" in the image linked above. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not complaining about the outcome of the deletion request. I'm complaining about one admin overturning another admin's close with no explanation on that page about why it is being overturned. The explanation you give is a correct explanation for the outcome of a deletion request, but does not address why another admin previously closed the same request differently. Without that it looks like admin shopping is acceptable - I know it isn't and I'm not accusing anyone of doing that, but that is what it looks like. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Because some of this stuff is very difficult. Christian Ferrer takes an arguable stance -- but on the other hand, I'm not sure there is a court case to back that stance up for a situation like this, so it's also reasonable to take a different stance. When we go around deleting people's hard work and contributions to the project, I generally prefer to be able to point to actual court cases which show the actual danger. Photos of statues, check. Photos of toys, check. Obviously, there is going to have to be some extrapolation for specific files where there is no perfect example case. But... photographs like this have been taken for a long long time, and if we can't point to a court case for this type of photo, it is very possible, even likely, that the reason is that copyright does not extend that far -- I'm not so sure that the artist of the plane artwork can reasonably claim derivative work rights over all photos of the plane. The closest case I've seen -- the Ets-Hokin decision on labels on the bottle -- in fact goes towards that such photos are not derivative works. This is closer to the line, but I'm not sure it's over it. The point of the photo is to show the unique plane, not necessarily inspired by the specific expression of the artist -- if a different artist had done the plane with different artwork, the plane photographer would likely be just as interested. It's more the trademark which makes it of interest. The photos do not seem to be focusing on any of the individual bits of artwork, but the whole plane... that might be enough of a difference. Deleting images in cases like this might also have the effect of extending the scope of copyright beyond what the courts actually say, which is also something I think we should fight against. But, no matter what lines we draw, there are bound to be situations where reasonable people (and judges for that matter) can disagree -- which means you are going to get inconsistent decisions (this happens in courts too). There is probably no easy answer for it, though as always, further discussion (or discovery of court cases) may yield something of a compromise. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
"The praetor does not concern himself with trifles". If you made clothing printed with the photo above, even if no cropped or no edited, and obtains a substantial gain by selling those clothing, how can you claim in a court of justice that the characteristic that made you earn money is the airplane and not the fresco. I guess in such a case there will be likely a few judges to say "bah..this this comic fresco is just trifle".;....but I not bet my arm on it. Then if no commercial reuse are allowed, the image have not to be here, it's place is on Wikipedia for fair use if relevant. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I also disagree with Carl about "trademarks", an artwork is an artwork when it is above TOO, no matter if this is a Pokemon or a bird paint by an unknow, not anonymous, artist. Regarding "De Minimis", look at this utilitarian object, currently free. If we add drawings, trademark or not, on the side of this cooking pot in the exact same proportions than on the airplane image. Then the utilitarian object become subjectile : COM:UA "the design of a useful article [...] shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.". Is is exactly the same thing for a vehicule. This is that, a derivative work, if no why we have not more full frame photos of utilitarian objects, cooking pots, plates.... with drawings?
I tend also to disagree with Carl about another thing, keeping images in cases like this might also have the effect of reducting the scope of copyright bellow what the courts and our policies actually say....and if I don't disagree, at least this opposite sentence is also valid IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
These cases are not biased for me and even if they were, then our policies are clear and precautionary principle should apply. And it is expected of an administrator to follow the policies even if it is against some consensus. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing de minimis, or saying the artwork on the plane is not copyrightable. It is. It is a question whether a photograph of the plane is a derivative work -- and that is not nearly always so simple as just saying the photo contains another copyrighted work above a de minimis level. Given another example, the patterns on clothing are often copyrighted, but we don't delete pictures of people wearing those clothes. They can prevent other people using that pattern directly, but once it becomes indirect -- a photo of someone else happening to own those clothes -- the situation would seem to change. Selling a picture of the plane is more likely to be a trademark violation than a copyright violation. It's possible, but without a court case to back that up, we are just guessing. And maybe guessing wrong. This could rise to a COM:PRP level, true. I don't think I'd try to undelete anything deleted like this. But if you argue that every time there is a borderline case, it tends to move the border, and something which was fine before is now borderline. Administrators can simply disagree, and end up keeping -- that is still following policy. There will be some files which don't have 100% agreement and there is little we can do about that. It's much better to find an example copyright case to back up such assertions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No the plane is not a derivative work. I did not delete photos of planes, I deleted photos showing drawings, in a way they can't be considered De Minimis. And again, derivative works are not a trademark issue, look this plate, the plate itself is an utilitarian object, the issue is the drawing, even if there is not a trademark registration for this drawing. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
And my main point is that de minimis is not the only way to avoid being a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
We certainly found the disagreement, I don't think we can "avoid" being a derivative work. If an artwork is visible on an image, then to be allowed here, it must be De Minimis or it must be free for another reason. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The U.S. court cases (photo of a bottle with a label, photo of a motorcycle with artwork on it) called it "incidental". The French court case (about a photo of a street with a large, copyrighted building in the middle) called it the "theory of the accessory" or something like that. In all those cases, the photo was not a derivative work despite the copyrighted elements being a substantial part of the photo. They were certainly not de minimis cases yet were ruled not derivative anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh ok, said in this way I understand much more your point. So, specific examples of those court cases, with relevant links leading to sample images should be added to the relevant policies here, and maybe the policies to be changed accordingly. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Otherwise it will be hard to ask someone to apply such exceptions until they are not specified in our policies. If they are currently written then I missed something. Pending these changes I keep my right to apply the policies as they are written in the extend of my understanding of course. This applies to future nominations that I will close, maybe included the ones below. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
My wider point is that there can be other administrators who do have knowledge of these, and may interpret the decisions and the law a bit differently -- that does not make them wrong or going against policy. There is no policy that says planes of this type must be deleted -- there is just a policy that requires a license for derivative works. What constitutes a derivative work can be a very complicated topic. As a counterexample, there was a U.S. case where a fashion photographer put a pair of fancy glasses (which turned out to be copyrighted) on the model even though the main subject was the clothing. Since that was an explicit act by the photographer though, it was ruled derivative and the photographer lost. When taking photos of something in its natural setting though, when the primary focus (the plane itself) is not copyrighted, things get cloudier. That goes especially when we can't find a court case of a similar photo in fact being ruled derivative -- we do have rulings where it was not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks you for the links! I just read Latimer vs Roaring Toyz, I find it very interesting, and as an amateur photographer I also appreciate this small immersion in the professional world. That's said, I disagree on the fact this case can be an exception regarding our DW policy. Firstly the complainant is the photographer, and the DW argument was a poor defense made the defendant-appellees. The result regarding the DW argument is quite logical. The creator of the drawing did not complain about anything and it was proved that he created the work knowingly with an implied license and have been paid for that. And the owners of the customized motos can't complaim about copyright infrengment because it's them who requested the photos! This case is more regarding abuse of license or abuse of lack of explicit license. The derivative work has been discussed since it was selected as a defense line, but as showed by the district court DW is not the main subject here. It's the only conclusion I see here, and I agree with. I don't see how this can be considered as an exception. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the judge was able to rule primarily based on a contract issue, but he left the plain direction he would go with the derivative work claim: Further weakening defendant-appellees argument is the fact that the ZX-14 motorcycles were the subject matter and primary focus of Latimer's photographs. Latimer's photographs can best be described as being “based upon” the ZX-14 motorcycles, useful articles not subject to copyright protection. The fact that Hathaway's artwork appears in the photographs is merely incidental. So, they would not have been derivative. The court was sort of overturning an overbroad lower court ruling two years prior (see here) which basically said that virtually all photographs of items cannot be derivative works, based on certain wording in U.S. law and similar to another case called SHL Imaging, but in the paragraph previous to my quoted one, this court more or less said that was too far. But they still distinguished this case from some others in the quoted part above, which in turn is basically directly in line with the Ets Hokin decision, which also ruled that a photo was not a derivative work of a label on a bottle, unless focused on the label itself. Just the primary object can be considered the "underlying work", in those cases. We should ignore SHL Imaging, as multiple courts have ruled the other way, but the quoted situation does seem to be about where courts are landing, unless there are other cases I'm unaware of. Schrock vs Learning Curve has a long discussion on the subject, although that case "assumed without ruling" that photos of toys were derivative works -- so even photos directly of copyrightable works have been a difficult subject for U.S. courts, although more recently there were affirmative rulings that photos of statues were derivative works. But when you add another level of indirection -- a photo of an object which itself contains a copyrighted work -- I'm not sure we have such a ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Then if we transpose the roles of the case, in a big poor summary, we have
The Pokemon Company
The artist commissioned, by the The Pokemon Company, to design the pokemon drawings
The photographer commissioned, once again by the The Pokemon Company, to take photos of the airplane with drawings
The photographer send, by mail, the edited files to The Pokemon Company in a purpose of publication in a Powerpoint presentation
Some month later the photographer find here the photo under the license we know and the photo have been uplaoded by The Pokemon Company
The photographer complain the publication here is not legal
The poor defense of The Pokemon Company is "the photographer can't complain because the only and first owner is the artist designer of the drawing, and the photographer lose de facto his rights"
1/The artist designer can't complain because he was knowingly commissioned to make drawing
2/The photographer was commissioned by The Pokemon Company to take this precise airplane, this plane with the drawing, not an other, then the subject can not be depicted in an other way.
3/The photographer is not the uploader and made no copyright infrengment
Then the DW argument that the photographer lose his right because there was previously an infrengment of the copyright of the designer was left out in one way or another by the district court. And that's logical. Not far from the exact opposite of the file deleted here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: The contract stuff in that case is mainly irrelevant -- the relevant question for this discussion is if the photo was a derivative work, which was definitively ruled as not being derivative by the district court, whereas on the appeal the circuit court had to tone down the scope of the lower court's ruling (but still indicated the photo of the motorcycle was not derivative). The actual ruling on the case ended up being a contractual thing, yes, but the item of interest to us was whether it was a derivative work (notwithstanding the perverse way the derivative rights were being claimed). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Never the copyright owner have complain and claim his rights. If there is a copyright infrengment then it comes first from Kawasaky as it is them who published first the photos, and if they have the permission form the designer that's mean the photograph have too this permission as he was indirectly commissioned by Kawasaky via the customiser, but in all cases the photographer never published himself the photo, it's even him who complain about the publication, it's a very special case. A precise case law can apply only in similar conditions or at least close. I think, we don't have to face this kind of case, and even if we had, administrators have no way to have so much evidences. And without evidences precaution must be applied. Never laws or case laws are applied without a complete and accurate establishment of the circumstances and without evidences of these circumstances. Asking people to apply a rule following a simple presumption, is the opposite of what this practice in justice and what is asked by our policies.
What are the commonalities between this case and the file with the airplanes? just vehicules with drawings. If you are interested in judicial decisions you should know that this is just a little small as a benchmark, never a decision can not be taken with so little. The presumption that there is a chance that a picture is free is at the opposite of the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I nominated a few more files. Please comment. There might be more in Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status of File:Wôkami - Carl Hubert de Villeneuve.png

This image was drawn between 1826-1830 by an artist who died in 1846. It was never published until 2015 when it appeared in Funk, H. (2015), "A re-examination of C. J. Temminck's sources for his descriptions of the extinct Japanese wolf", Archives of Natural History, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp. 51-65, ISSN 0260-9541, published by the Edinburgh University Press. The copyright has expired, but does its 2015 publisher enjoy a publication right for 25 years following its first publication? --Rrburke (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

#16 + #19 on this page by Holger Funke suggest a prior publication, please check. –Be..anyone 💩 19:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Be..anyone: I had a look at the article and the footnotes but couldn't find any reference to the drawing. --Rrburke (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
For the U.S., no copyright. For the UK... possibly, though how did the authors come into possession of the drawings? If they have changed hands before, publication might have occurred long ago. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) In the United Kingdom, the copyright to many kinds of works expires 50 years after the death of the author or 50 years after publication, whichever is later. I suspect that this is one of the kind of works which gets a copyright term of 50 years from publication - and 50 years from publication is a lot longer than 70 years from the death of the author as the first publication was 159 years after the death of the author. In that case, the original copyright term hasn't expired yet (it expires in 1940 when the 50 years from publication rule will be abolished in British copyright legislation).
Alternatively, if this isn't one of those kinds of works which get a copyright term of 50 years from publication, then the work became re-copyrighted in the United Kingdom upon publication for a period of 25 years under EU rules. Incidentally, this would result in the same copyright expiration year.
If there was a prior publication (I haven't checked), then the copyright has probably expired long ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
You are thinking of literary, dramatic, or musical works, plus engravings, where publication mattered (also for photographs a little bit). There is a chart here. This one should be a straight 70pma, other than the potential publication right. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Who holds the publication right, if there is one: the Edinburgh University Press or the author of the article? And, bottom line, does this image need to be deleted? --Rrburke (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure on either count. Tentative guess the author of the article was more the one who made it available to the public. But where had the drawings been all these years? Held privately by a family, or in a library archive somewhere? Also, unsure what the Berne Convention would say about country of origin based purely on the publication right (which has nothing to do with Berne). It does seem as though the drawing was done in Japan by a Dutch artist, from the descriptions here, though possibly as a work for hire of one researcher, and then sent to another researcher. The fact that the author and researchers were European might lead towards the publication right existing. Technically though, if there was a public display of the drawings in Japan in the 1800s, that would mean the publication right would not exist since that act would have already occurred (as the "publication right" section in UK law has a different definition of "publication" than the rest of their law). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the Swedish 'international copyright decree', international copyright treaties (such as the Berne Convention) do not extend to the publication right. It seems that Swedish law says that this provision only applies if
  1. the author was an EEA citizen, or
  2. a resident of Sweden, or
  3. if, within 25 years from the initial publication, the work is published in Sweden with permission from the original author's heirs, and the work never has been published with consent from these heirs before. In this case, protection seems to begin when it was published with permission from the heirs and run for 25 years from the first time the work was published. For example, if published in any country in 2005 without permission and then in Sweden in 2010 with permission, then the protection seems to be created in 2010 and run for 25 years from 2005.
Not sure if all countries are required to use the same implementation or if Britain may have chosen to use a different implementation.
The copyright holder is supposed to be the original publisher. Not sure if this is the person who creates the book/article/other publication or the publishing house which assists this person in the publication of the material. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


{{PD-old-100}} wants an US template, and I found no {{PD US dunno and don't care}}. How about a default {{PD-1923}} based on 1916<1923 — obviously this must be wrong, but I need a clue and more coffee. –Be..anyone 💩 04:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

{{PD-old-100-1923}} if before 1923? Josve05a (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed on File:FMB last.jpg, so now my refined question is why we don't redirect PD-old-100 to PD-old-100-1923. Be..anyone 💩 11:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Since some works may be published posthumous (after death). An artist may have been dead for more that 100 ~years, but a work might not have been published before 1923. (I think) Josve05a (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
If that just so happened to be first published in, say, 1997, it would still be under U.S. copyright. Any tags based on date of death usually won't have relevance for U.S. copyright status, unless created after 1978 or first published after 2002. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Invisible trademarks

In a follow upp of the discussion in What is the legal consequence of invisible trademarks placed by tools such as in try-out versions. I suppose if such images is used commercialy without paying the licence fee for the tool the uploader can theory be procecuted. Does this have any consequence for the Wikimedia foundation? I suppose only the uploader is responsible, as it is imposible for the foundation to detect the invisibe trademark.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an invisible watermark in the test upload, meta-data checked with exiftool. Watermarks are evil beyond repair. –Be..anyone 💩 11:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:TVAM Regents Canal .jpg

File:TVAM Regents Canal .jpg, File:TVAM Photographed by Richard Bryant.jpg and File:TVAM Photographed by Richard Bryant 02.jpg were all uploaded by Melanie Watkins as "own work" and licensed under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". The names of two of the files seem to suggest they were taken by somebody other than the uploader. The files are being used in the article en:TV-am and were attributed to a "Richard Bryant" [4] by the same uploader. The metadata for two of the photos ("File:TVAM Photographed by Richard Bryant 02.jpg" and "File:TVAM Photographed by Richard Bryant.jpg") give quite explicit information regarding copyright, but again this seems to imply that the uploader and photographer are not the same. The metadata for "File:TVAM Regents Canal .jpg" seems different from the other two, so perhaps this is the uploader's own work. Do any of these photos require OTRS verification?

Finally, there seems to be an space that was accidentally added to the file name "File:TVAM Regents Canal .jpg". Not sure if this needs to be removed or not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I tagged all files as "no permission". Thanks for reporting. Also, for the file rename, we filemovers won't rename it until OTRS permission is received and verified. Thanks, Poké95 04:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Poké95 03:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Publication date of paintings and sculptures

Could the legal successor of a 17th-century Greek icon painter show up in the US and claim there is a copyright violation about the publication of this image?

Hello. In the past, for old artworks (like centuries old), I used the template {{PD-old-100}}, which stated that the artwork is the public domain in the US and in countries where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or less. Now this template only states the latter and asks for a United States public domain tag. Therefore, I often use instead {{PD-old-100-1923}}. However, for paintings or sculptures, it seems that "publication before 1923" would mean that, before 1923, reproductions of the artwork (so not the artwork itself) should be "publicly distributed or offered to a group for further distribution or public display". For famous artworks, it is often the case, because we can find books published before 1923 with reproductions of Mona Lisa or The Ambassadors. However, it is possible (and sometimes likely) that more obscure artworks were not "published" before 1923. This means that even paintings from the Middle Age might not be in the public domain in the US and that the hypothetical legal successors of medieval painters might claim there is a copyright violation.

So, should we consider that an artwork is not in the public domaine in the US unless there is an evidence that there exist reproductions of it published before 1923 (and consequently should we delete all these reproductions of old paintings and sculptures)? Or should we consider that it is unlikely that the legal successors of these artists will show up? In the later case, should not we set a threshold date and create an appropriate template? Thank you for your ideas and comments. BrightRaven (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

According to Commons:Hirtle_chart the USA copyright term for unpublished works is 70 years after the authors' death or 120 years from the creation for anonymous works. Ruslik (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The definition of publication changed as of 1978 -- the quote you pointed to does not apply for acts before 1978. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. In general, public display without any attempt to restrict reproduction (like photography) was generally taken as publication back then. So, we assume that sculptures on permanent display were published at the time. Sculptures since 1978 are much more problematic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Facebook images (exif/metadata)

Hi! Commons is constantly flooded by social media images, especially grabbed from Facebook, and they are hard to detect. We have some indications like typical resolutions like 720, 960, 2048 etc., often accompanied with an " * " in the metadata. But I am wondering also about the "Special Instruction" + string beginning with "FBMD" in the exif of Facebook images. See e.g. File:Natanaelrochaoficial.jpeg or here ( is currently down, see alternatively here). See also, "which are apparently automatically added during the upload process" [to Facebook]. Is FBMD the abbreviation for FaceBook MultimeDia? Is the string "FBMD" an indicator, that the photo was already published on Facebook, before it was uploaded to Commons? Gunnex (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, yes, that is an indication that it's a file grabbed from Facebook. On a related note, if anyone knows if it's possible to deduce the original URL from the FBMD string, that would be really interesting to know about. I know you can find the original page a file appears on from the second numerical part of the Facebook filename, e.g. 12961420_1090409764351401_5330608405736875822_o.jpg =, but I don't know if it's possible to find either of those based on "FBMD01000ab803000035200000f243000014440000604400005f630000a1930000889d0000e29d00006b9e00008ef30000". LX (talk, contribs) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@LX: "I know you can find the original page a file appears on from the second numerical part of the Facebook filename (...)" --> that's correct, but only works if the photo was shared as "public" (visible for everyone) on Facebook. For FB photos shared only with friends/private/etc. and/or in closed groups, Facebook emits "Sorry, this content isn't available right now: the link you followed may have expired, or the page may only be visible to an audience you're not in." Gunnex (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Using Quarry = only in the last 5 days 862 living uploads with "FBMD" in the metadata...
Example: File:AngelDelaCruz.jpg (uploaded 27.04.2016, "FBMD01000a920d0000903200006663000088630000d4630000e78b0000bff200006ffd000091fd0000c9fd0000abbc0100") --> grabbed from (25.04.2016, "FBMD01000a920d0000903200006663000088630000d4630000e78b0000bff200006ffd000091fd0000c9fd0000abbc0100" = identical).
And now? 365 days : 5 days = 73 5-day-periods x 862 images each 5 days = 62.926 images yearly grabbed (still living) from Facebook...? Gunnex (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
New Quarry --> 3519 living uploads from 03.2016 with "FBMD"... (3519 : 31 = 113,52 x 5 = 568 [567,58] uploads each 5-days...) Gunnex (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The "Special instructions" field in the metadata as the "Instructions" field is a simple text field. There is certainly no common ground between this field and the original URL at least not one we can find, maybe they are even created randomly. But likely Facebook have associate this kind of string to each image in order to trace the source from a database also containing original URL. Sadly without this database...Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment If there is no doubt that the images containing that character string passed through Facebook, that's mean they were previously published, that's mean we need permissions, that's mean the ones without permissions should maybe be deleted even if we don't find additional evidences that the presence of this specific string....Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd have to guess it is "Facebook Metadata". The value is hexadecimal data. There are too many zeroes in there for it to contain a long ID string directly, but it's not clear what the values are (a quick search didn't turn up anything). I think that is a very clear indicator the image was copied from Facebook though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: FBMD = "Facebook Metadata" --> indeed, makes more sense than "Facebook Multimedia" (per above). Also mentioned via (example) ("Hm, looks like hex but it's something else... Not binary..."). There, the cited FBMD code was also used for a comparism query via See also this post and this FBMD string analyzer (whatever this means...)
14.081 affected uploads since 01.01.2016 (to 27.04.2016), including also Flickr reviewed files like File:-Porto (24601390960).jpg ("FBMD23000968010000394b0000d6610000b3720000216301004cc701001c38020037a7020016050300259b0300"). I am rather at a loss what to do now... Gunnex (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I would DR, and delete if no more info is provided, any file with FBMD in metadata. (I deleted File:AngelDelaCruz.jpg, most probably a copyvio.) In the case of File:-Porto (24601390960).jpg, the issue is whether the Flickr account is the photographer or not. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
If there is this string in the metadata this means the file was previously published on Facebook before on Flickr, and the version on Flick have been uploaded from Facebook from a way or an other. The oldest is to be considered by default as the owner. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, we already had a few related deletion requests (@Josve05a: per Special:diff/181552721). Gunnex (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Would it not be preferable (as far as technically feasible) to just block uploads with FBMD... (and [if possible] * as well), as it seems quite obviously that these files were previously published on Facebook under unclear copyright status? I mean, who will check the 14.081 affected uploads from 01.01.2016 — 27.04.2016 (btw: you have to wait some seconds after loading the query before data is appearing...), 1.229 affected uploads from 28.04.2016 — 04.05.2016 and 17.622 affected uploads from 2015 and who will open thousands of DR's?

Btw, it seems that, considering the query results for 2014 (416 living files, ignore the first results which are Facebook unrelated and wait again some seconds till data appears), that this FB specific metatag was introduced only in (around) 11.2014, because only beginning with 12.11.2014 is registered the 1st file with the typical FBMD + 94 digits tag. Gunnex (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Dinosaur skeletons copyrighted?

"Sue", a famous mounted Tyrannosaurus skeleton with reconstructed parts, Field Museum, US

A recent DR (by Jameslwoodward) was closed as delete (by Christian Ferrer) with little discussion[6], and if taken as a precedent, will have far reaching consequences. The photo[7] depicted some mounted skeleton casts of extinct animals in a US museum, and the nominator argued that because the skeletons were not based entirely on original bones, and partially reconstructed, that they were subject to copyright. I argued that missing bones are usually cast (or 3D printed) from bones of related animals (neither is art), or sometimes sculpted if entirely missing or broken, but that such additions would be very minor parts of the entire photo, and therefore fall under Commons:De minimis. Furthermore, I'm not sure if sculpting a bone and posing it for a scientific exhibit, based solely on scientific information, counts as art in the legal sense (no/little original creative input). In spite of this, the photo was deleted, and I fear this will be a slippery slope; we have thousands of such photos, and if this is any kind of precedent, they will all have to be deleted (apart from mounts that are PD-old). No dinosaur skeleton is 100% complete, and all mounted skeletons are "arbitrarily posed". To my knowledge, no Commons photo of a dinosaur skeleton has ever before been deleted based on copyright claims, so we need to decide how to treat this issue in the future. If we decide to keep such images, the deleted one should be restored (the background mural can easily be cropped out). FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I wouldn't grant a copyright to skeletons, but the background mural is too prominent, IMO. However, the image could be cropped. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I deleted because : I had no ideas if the bones are bones and not replicas with a personal interpretation (sculptures), there was two 2d artwork (one was not De Minimis) of unclear copyright statut, the base on which are the bones is also a 3d work (sculpture) of unclear copyrighgt statut and IMO not De Minimis. Animals and bones in museums are sometimes replicas, maybe made by specialist indeed, but that stay artworks, e.g. this image, a replica can have all sort of copyright statuts according to who made them and according to the part of artistic interpretation which is included in the replica. In what extend those bones are really bones and not artistic replicas with a personal interpretation? Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by "replicas with a personal interpretation"? Ruslik (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I mean projection from the artist to create bones if the skeleton was not complete, in what extend?, or projection from the artist to create a false skeleton in a specific position. All this in a 3D backdrop also created by an artist. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I must precise that the deleted image is for 1/3 a 2d artwork on the wall (unclear copyright statut) more than 1/3 3D backdrop (unclear copyright statut) and less than 1/3 with 3 skeletons. This is another image of the same place. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
If the bones are a copy of another animal, there is no copyright there. They are mean to be a slavish copy of an original even if not, not really a creative exercise. And I would agree that a photo of the entire skeleton would make them de minimis anyways. I'm not really sure the positioning of the skeleton is copyrightable -- most of that, again, would be limited by realistic poses and is probably not original in that such poses have been done before. No opinion on the backdrop since I can't see it -- sounds like that might have been an issue though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The image deleted is very similar to this one. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
For a USGov installation, I particularly would not worry about the dinosaur then. The mural... if the photo seems like it was intentionally including it... might be an issue -- those might be commissioned from particular artists, as opposed to being a more normal work for hire. If it was unavoidable as a backdrop and the focus of the photo was clearly just on the skeleton, I think it'd be OK. Looks like the mural was by Margaret Colbert (1911–2007). I found an August 1978 mention that she had "recently completed" that mural under commission of the National Park Service for the Petrified Forest National Park, and it was then on display at the Museum of Northern Arizona. Odds are pretty high it was reproduced in park material in the 1980s without a copyright notice, but we may want better confirmation of that before claiming PD status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The deleted photo can be seen here on Flickr:[8] In any case, the status of the mural is a completely separate issue. As I've stated earlier, it could very easily have been cropped out if that was really the main problem, but it seems the image was deleted because of the skeletons. Otherwise the deletion makes little sense; it is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Virtually any work by a sculptor has a copyright in the US, as does work by taxidermists and other similar professions. Why is creating a dinosaur bone any different from creating a sculpture of a human or a model of a car? Please remember also that the creative effort necessary for a copyright begins with the research that tells the sculptor what shape to make the bone -- don't tell the people who construct such things that there is no creativity involved. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not a philosophical discussion about what should be considered art in general. it is about what is considered art in the legal, copyrightable sense, which is all that matters to Commons. Yes, it takes artistry to create an exact replica bone. It also takes artistry to draw a perfect circle. But is there enough original, creative input for it to be considered copyrightable? Hardly. Furthermore, the sculpted parts will not be the focal point of such skeletons, it will just be a part of it, and therefore fall under de minimis. In any case, will Jameslwoodward and Christian Ferrer make sure that all such images are deleted? If this is a real problem, then deleting one, arbitrarily chosen image among thousands seems pointless. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It takes skill -- but if they are slavishly reproducing an existing bone, it is not creative in the copyrightable sense. The more creative they are, the less scientific it is, frankly. If possible I'm sure they would reproduce the same bone from another known real skeleton. If we are going to delete photos on a basis like that, we should have an example court case to show that copyright actually extends that far, and I can't think of any that are close. You'd have to be focusing on one of the (known sculptural) bones for it to be a problem, if it even is then, from the best of my understanding. Deletion because there *might* be sculptural bones which are not slavish reproductions, and in turn because a photo of the entire skeleton *might* be considered a derivative work (despite no legal evidence of such, and some legal precedent to the contrary), is going well too far in my opinion. Additionally here, it could easily be a work for hire of the federal government anyways. The intentional inclusion of the mural is the only consideration here, I think, and even that is not a slam-dunk -- taking a picture of an entire museum room is not likely to be derivative of anything in it, just like a photo of a city skyline is not derivative of any individual building. It's when you are intentionally including works (which could have been avoided) to enhance the photo that you can run into problems, which is borderline in the mural case (and even then there is a strong chance of PD status for the mural). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • So before this gets archived, what are we to do? FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I restored the image and cropped it, as this discussion doesn't seem to be moving. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)