Open main menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/12

< 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.

Contents

File:1930 McLaughlin (9291484274).jpg

This section was archived on a request by: Offnfopt(talk) 22:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This and some other images were re-licensed at my request so they could be uploaded to Wikimedia but the photographer used the PD label. She has now very kindly amended the licence to CCO. How do I record that on the file? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Eddaido I've changed the license to CC0 to match the change to flickr and have added the template to the page so a license reviewer can sign off on the license change. All should be good now. - Offnfopt(talk) 22:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Edit: Eddaido sorry missed the part about and some other images. If all the images were changed to CC0 then just replace the license with {{cc-zero}} and replace {{FlickreviewR|status=etc etc etc}} with {{Flickrreview}}. - Offnfopt(talk) 23:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much Offnfopt for sorting that out, my best regards to you, Eddaido (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this copyrighted? The licenses seem contradictory and confusing 😵

So I found this image (Old coin No.16822Maximum Resolution Version) of Thiên Phúc Trấn Bảo (天福鎮寶) coins from the Earpy Lê Dynasty (“10 the latter half of the century old coin, Taihei Heung po and heavenly blessing Jin Po.”) with a license above them that states “Images can be modified and be used for commercial purposes without fee under the license.” which seems to be compatible with the license(s) used for/by Wikimedia Commons, however when you click on the license page you're greeted with this message which specifically states “3) You must not redistribute the images in any way designed for reuse. You must not offer for sale or sub-license these images (or a collection of) without our express permission.” and a whole load of restrictions, does the license from the first linked 🔗 page count? Or does the second license overrule the first one?

The reason this is so confusing is because I used Microsoft Bing Images and searched for images using the “No copyright ©” settings.

Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The full terms include "You must not redistribute the images in any way designed for reuse", which is not compatible with COM:L. -- (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Alright and thank you, I just thought that the individual image was exempt, section resolved. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Are OTRS e-mails copyrighted?

I want to write an essay about WP:PROXYING on Wikimedia Commons and wonder if I could copy and paste this message as an example? It was published by the receiver and not the author ao I'm not sure if I could use it as an example. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not gospel but advisory. Would have thought that for these emails to be quoted, an authentic email header should be included to serve as an audit trial. May be easier in the long run (and better academic protocol) to ask the sender to confirm that this correspondence is GNU or what ever, and can be reproduced under that license (plus, avoids you from libel etcetera). It will also give your essay more weight by showing a little bit of fact checking has gone into what your have written or hope to write. P.g.champion (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Update: "Things are getting weirder and weirder". so says Alice (in Wonderland) in her befuddlement. The sender of the emails appears to possibly be User:Ktr101 and thus will probably not reply. P.g.champion (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Like other forms of creative expression, email messages are copyrighted upon creation, so you may not use it without permission, and you may not ask for permission via any WMF wiki because the author appears to be WMF banned.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Could not have put it any better than Jeff G. Unfortunately, your inquiry is transgressing into asking for legal advice which is not in our remit to provided. However, as post-script you may like to mention the aim of your essay. Other editors may see some common ground with you and be able to come up with some suggestions. Obviously, there is -as you know- some extra history which you haven't mentioned (including that of the recipient), maybe out of fear of suggesting that the WMF has some “dirty linen ” . We love dirty linen. We wash it an make it clean. This issue has been through our wash/spin cycle and hung out to dry. So if you wish to revisit for essay purposes -feel free. But think we can not advise you in the legal sense any further than that stated above. P.g.champion (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Also how important is the full excerpt to your essay? If it is an essay and not some kind of in depth research work, then probably not that important at all. Just quote its contents directly maybe once for one line, and otherwise refer normally to its content in your words. Your use of the quote will be permissible and not infringe on copyright. If you used any more than a few lines and it becomes a larger excerpt and you are writing in a country which has a fair use/dealing structure, then you are covered anyway for educational purposes. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Watermark question

File:Miss Eco Queen 2015 (18088716831).jpg is sourced to Flickr, and it has been reviewed by FlickreviewR as OK for Commons; however, there is a watermark in the upper left corner. The Flickr account is ahmed arafa and the accout holder appears to be this person; therefore, this does not appear to be a case of COM:LL. The question I have is whether anything needs to be done about the watermark. I know that Commons:Watermarks and I am also aware of Category:Images with watermarks; in addition, the {{Cc-by-2.0}} the file is licensed under on Flickr seems to only require attribution. Does that mean that someone can remove the watermark? Does the watermark even need to be removed? Should the file be tagged with {{Watermark}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been debated before with some uncertainty over the legitimacy of this. It looks like the Commons approach has been to remove the watermark anyway, provide the same attribution in the file page, and then just insist normally like we always do that reusers attribute the photographer clearly. Template:Attribution metadata from licensed image (placed after watermark is actually removed) explains that its purpose to maintain a record of images on Commons with watermark removed in case it becomes a legal issue in the future, and to also advise reusers of this. seb26 (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks seb26. In this case, it's not clear whether the uploader and the Flickr account holder are one and the same. Would it be OK to ask someone at COM:GL/P to remove the watermark in a case such as this or does original copyright holder need to do it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
To give you two examples in practice today on Commons: (1) images from Tasnim, an Iranian news agency, are released under CC-BY-4.0 on their site. Commons has over 11,000 of these. All photos on Tasnimnews.com carry 2 watermarks, a transparent one in the corner and a black bar at the bottom. The second is easy to remove, the first is harder because it can sometimes obscure important visual content. Across all of the Tasnim images I have reviewed, uploaders have either removed one of the watermarks, both, left the image in tact, or uploaded both two separate files with and without matermarks. Given the sheer variety of cases, I decided to amend the Tasnim license template to contain the same statement that Template:Attribution metadata from licensed image. The Tasnim image category is also categorised as part of the tree of watermarked images supposedly being kept track of for future legal issues. Appropriate attribution is still given to the photographer and the agency in the information template so that reusers can comply appropriately, but in the majority of cases no watermark remains on those photos. There have "never been any issues". (2) A separate case: File:Yuvan Shankar Raja exclusive HQ Photos Silverscreen.jpg is one of hundreds of images I have seen from Silverscreen.in, a celebrity blog from India with their own photographers. There is an OTRS release for these images with email contact from the Silverscreen staff, who simply advised that the images are available under that CC license but with no mention about anything to do with watermarks. Their watermarks are much more intrusive, sometimes covering the neck or body of the person depicted. Several users have worked hard to remove the watermarks and again there has "been no issues" (that I know of, with Silverscreen). My best assumption of all of this is that given the lack of resolve to the legal question, it still looks like Commons' consensus for quite a while has been to operate under the premise of remove the watermark and give attribution in other ways. In the case of this image you have raised, you should probably just tag it with {{Watermark}} as that would be sufficient to alert someone's attention to it. If it were more important and a more immediate use was required (like you are working on that article and you would like it done faster) then I can't see a problem with raising it at the graphics lab. In terms of who can remove the watermark? As shown above, on a regular basis Commons users are happily removing watermarks so I would not say that the copyright holder is considered to be the only one appropriate to remove it. As the license permits derivative works, it could be done by anyone, still withstanding the unresolved legal question about whether it should be removed or not to begin with. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, as for the doubt over whether the file uploader on Commons is related or the same person as the Flickr user, no they are most likely not given the difference in the countries each individual has declared in their various bios (Commons uploader from Slovenia and Flickr user from Egypt). The link between Flickr user and actual photographer is pretty solid to me and the social media arrangement does not set off any warning bells about license laundering like you mentioned at the beginning. But this shouldn't determine who can remove the watermark, given that from what I can see, anyone has the right to make changes when the license permits derivatives. That Flickr account is interesting though because of the mix in licenses, some are all rights reserved and others are CC no commercial use. seb26 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Arafa.jpg

The EXIF data for this file seems to indicate that it's taken from Facebook. The same uploader has uploaded five other photos, each of which has different EXIF data from the other. One of the photos (File:فيورد باي.jpg) looks like it was used online here prior to being uploaded, but the online version appears to be of a lower-quality and also slightly cropped. I cannot find any of the other files being used online. Can Commons accept all these as licensed or is OTRS verification needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly: Usually the uploader is asked to overwrite the file with their original file from the camera, as a basic way of proving they have access to those and are probably the photographer themselves. If they don't or can't, they need to provide a free license release to OTRS. Facebook metadata is a big doubt on the scale of COM:PCP to me and a dialogue should be started with the uploader about drafting an email to OTRS using the template. Otherwise without that those files with Facebook metadata should be deleted. I have also seen people asked to edit the Facebook photo page to include a CC statement which is something that also works as legitimacy toward the free license. seb26 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Understand and thank for the clarification. I will post something about this on their user talk. Would it be appropriate to tag the files with {{Npd}} if there is no response from the uploader after a reasonable amount of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Marchjuly, yes NPD is the right way to go. A deletion request is also appropriate and they have the same deletion time frame of 7 days, but NPD is better for user friendliness because it explains clearly what is required and provides links for new people straight to the consent template/generator (that I linked above). seb26 (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Marine.le .pen .jpg

The EXIF shows that the copyright holder is Elliott Gauthier rather than that of the up-loader. Also, his the descriptions and categories of his other uploads don't make any sense and thus makes them useless for use on WC. Think too, that they are all copyvios. Being a new up-loader he may benefit from a little guidance but I'm not in the right mood just now. P.g.champion (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I nominated that one for deletion, but yes, the ones I spot checked all look like copyvios. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, I must be in a bad mood today as I have put them all up for deletion. Just hope the wife doesn't decide to delete me for the insurance money ! P.g.champion (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  All now deleted. P.g.champion (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Images from 1900 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)

 
The photograph concerned was released in 1900.

I had recently uploaded an image taken from a book 📖 published in 1900, I originally found the image on Gary Ashkenazy's Primal Trek (or Primaltrek) which was taken from “Chinese Pictures: Notes on Photographs” written by Isabelle Lucy Bird under her married name of Mrs. J.F. Bishop and published by Charles L. Bowman & Co. in the year 1900. (the picture 📷 is available here).

Is this picture still copyrighted? I uploaded it with the assumption that It’s in the public domain but now I see that Mrs. Bishop died in 1904 and I’m not really that familiar with British & Northern-Irish copyright laws, was I correct to upload this image or should it be deleted? Should I add some extra tags to the images (I’ve uploaded a nearly un-altered version and a cropped version), and if so which tag should I use? For the record ⏺ I used both for non-USA and the PD-1923 tags.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that on Prinaltrek it was only cropped, so it's derivative and applies to both. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I just saw that 1900 is in fact Public Domain in the UK, if I'm wrong feel free to remove the "section resolved" but I answered my own question (I think).

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

File:JamesButler.jpg

How does one tackle this. A good professional photo of a candidate for Mayor. So it is surprising that the uploader just calls himself Butlermayor0712 and is his only upload. Do I post an OTRS request? P.g.champion (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A reverse image search shows this image has already been published elsewhere with no indication of a compatible license. Indeed if it is the subject of the image -- and, importantly, if the subject is also the owner of the image -- then we would need him to go through OTRS. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Abloy

File:Abloy logo.jpg and File:Abloy.svg: Are these too creative for {{PD-textlogo}}? I'm not sure if they'd be judged as meeting COM:TOO, or not. -- Begoon 03:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, think they are over the line. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Audio on a video question

So, I was at the American Athletic Conference Championship last Saturday and got on field access for the trophy presentation. I recorded the trophy presentation with my own camera, but the audio you can hear of the presentation is likely the stuff being played through the PA system at the stadium, which my camera picked up. Can I release the video, with that audio, or does it become a copyright infringement since the audio you hear is being played using someone else's equipment? --Elisfkc (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Elisfkc, what kind of audio can be heard on the recording? Is it predominanetly music, or speech? The ownership of sound equipment would not play a role in copyright, however, the content of the sound would. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Seb26: Speech. Elisfkc (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll wait for others to comment but to share the results of my searching (1x deletion debate), there appears to be a distinction between extemporaneous speech (not prepared, off the cuff, words are spoken from the mind without prior preparation) compared to prepared, written speeches in relation to copyright. seb26 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to apply Commons:De minimis, although this is usually applied to incidental items in images. If the sound is not prominent and if is incidental to the subject of the video then we can probably ignore any copyright on it. However, if the sound was made in connection with the presentation then it is not incidental and its copyright must be respected.
Irrespective of the sound on the PA, could the trophy presentation itself be copyrightable, perhaps as a performance? Presumably if the ceremony was sufficiently theatrical then it would be protected by copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: Maybe, but considering the only thing that could be considered "theatrical" about it was the confetti, I'm pretty sure that this ceremony is ok. Elisfkc (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
File uploaded. Thanks everyone. --Elisfkc (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:FARC party logo.png

Can someone interested in derivative works/threshold of originality take a look at this debate and potentially give thoughts on those arguments? The discussion is long, but I would appreciate some cross-analysis specifically about derivative works, since that will decide the DR's outcome. seb26 (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Did I have the rights to upload this screenshot?

I added a topic to Talk:Community Tech/Wikitext editor syntax highlighting and couldn't find an image of the icon in the wikipedia source editor that switched to the visual editor. I took a screenshot and uploaded it. As far as I could tell from reading the help, etc, the visual aspects of the wikipedia interface are under a free license. Is that correct? Here's the image's page and here is the screenshot itself:   - Brucehs (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I may have managed to answer my own question. This screenshot has a permission section that seems to cover screenshots of wikipedia interfaces. - Brucehs (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Free Image?

Part of https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47db-1448-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99 is on en-wiki as a non-free image. The text under the photo starts "U.S.N. 349." - is that enough to be able to use a {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} license? OR will a {{PD-US}} work? I've no idea where "North River" is. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This enthusiast site has rehosted the image from the NYPL and adds that the picture was taken in New York/New Jersey. That, the caption "USN 349" and the fact NYPL attributes the Navy Department Library as their source make me think these are strong enough suggestions of this being a military work. seb26 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I have permission from the owner to use their images, where do I cite that please?

Hi, I wish to upload an image of a public figure. I do have "express permission" from this person to do so, but I cannot find where to cite that permission, or however that works.

I do not wish to accidentally violate the copyright terms, but if I do have permission, how do I make that work?

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by VioletCharles (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@VioletCharles: You (or the actual copyright holder) can send an email (see Commons:Email templates) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. For a full description of this process, see Commons:OTRS, especially When do I contact OTRS? --Animalparty (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You should also have a permission from the photographer. Ruslik (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Using words / sentences from wiktionary for speech

Hi.

I want to use words / sentences from wiktionary for a speech service (so using it "as speech" / in spoken form). The problem is, that I cannot point to the original page (license requirement), because there is no conventional user interface or web page.

How can I fulfill the license requirement?

Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.165.130.170 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Single words are not protected by copyright. So, no attribution is required. Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the enquirer is thinking of quoting definitions from Wiktionary, not just single words. Something like honorable is defined in the dictionary as "Worthy of respect; respectable". The question how this should be attributed to a Wiktionary page. If this is a religious service in various countries then copyright exemptions may apply, but this is still a valid question. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly the use case I meant. Using words and the definition of them. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.119.131.117 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Christmas village (miniatures) photos

This one in particular File:Dickens Village at night.jpg (or another one). These are installations made by Mary Ellen Page (a designer working for Department 56, if I understand properly). Are they correctly under a free license by uploaders?

I am not some bored Commons-lurker in search "what else to delete now?.." :-) But as I decided to write the Russian version of Christmas village (w:ru:Рождественский городок) then after some hesitation I decided to ask. It is better to clear all up now then having delinkers by Christmas (if there are any problems). --NeoLexx (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Angela Boškin.jpg

I am wondering if the licensing of this file is correct. It was just uploaded the other day and there is a non-free file uploaded locally to English Wikipedia under the same name as en:File:Angela Boškin.jpg. The English Wikipedia file was uploaded back in September 2016 giving a different source, but it looks to be basically a crop of this photo. Because both files have the same name, the local file is shadowing the Commons one, which means that the local file will be used even if the person thinks they are using the Commons one. This can be a problem because the local file will called up even on pages where non-free use is not allowed on English Wikipedia. Usually, this shadowing can be resolved by simply changing one of the two file names, but in this case the files appear to be from the same original photo. If the Commons one's licensing is OK, then most likely the local file can be converted to that license; if, however, it's not OK, then it probably needs to be reassessed and even possibly be deleted. In the latter case, no file name change or license conversion would be needed for the lcoal file. Anyone have any opinions on whether the Commons file is really PD in both Slovenia and the US? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia having the same file under a fair use license is rarely indicative of much, besides the fact that someone found it easier to upload under fair use than worry about the details. Assuming the identification of it as a WWI photo of her is correct, it's almost certainly PD in the US, provided it was published at the time. Given that there's no author or original publication information, there's no way to tell anything about its status in a life+70 nation like Slovenia; it's got another 20 years before we can assume it's PD in a life+70 nation (under the 120 years rule), even assuming it was published circa 1917.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, in the meantime, I tried to fix the horrible moire pattern on the image linked in the heading. Not sure how successful I was. Interestingly, the "crop" at en.wiki has no such problem. Make of that what you will. -- Begoon 12:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The en-wiki article says it is from her graduation in Vienna in 1914. If there is enough to assume anonymous publication around that time, such as being part of a graduating class' yearbook, it would be PD-anon-70-EU and PD-1923 for the US. Austria does have a shorter term for photographs as well, see {{PD-Austria-1932}} (the argument there is that a quirk in the wording of the implementation of the EU directive meant that such photographs were *not* retroactively restored in Austria). Whether Slovenia would qualify as the Berne country of origin, with that shorter term for photographs, harder to say. It was presumably published in Austria-Hungary, in the Austrian Empire portion, and Slovenia is indeed one of the successor nations -- so if "simultaneously published" in all successor nations, the country of origin would be the one with the shortest term. The "source country" for the URAA would be Austria, but that is likely irrelevant as it was published before 1923 anyways. Austria did not join the Berne Convention until 1920 though, by which time Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia (which joined Berne in 1930). The photo was apparently taken, and presumably published, in Vienna. I see another version of it here. It does seem as though there are multiple sources, which indicates publication around then. I think it's PD-1923, with possibly enough to assume anonymous publication, and PD-Austria-1932 would also apply. So maybe keep with that latter template instead of the Slovenian one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes, Begoon, Clindberg: Thanks for all the time you have put into trying to figure this out. If it is determined that this photo is PD and the licensing is converted per Clindberg's suggestion, then can the local cropped version be converted to the same licensing even though the given source is different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I was also looking at the Austrian angle and I think Carl has the right view on it. Personally I think one might be better off to make a cropped version of the commons file as then both will have the same source and a cropped version looks like it will be about the same resolution, and then let the non-free enwiki get deleted as a non-free orphan when it gets replaced in the article. Ww2censor (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: That's fine with me and I suggested that might be a possibility to the editor who uploaded the Wikipedia file. If that's what needs to be done, then perhaps you can explain it to her so that she doesn't re-add the local file after being notified that it's an orphan and will be deleted unless it's re-added to an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
except the editor on english may not trust you not to delete it here in the future, and will want a local copy. can't say PD-1923 because Vienna, so you are at the mercy of european anonymous haters who insist on 120. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

File:MHBS Logo-shield only.final.jpg

This file seems unlikely to be "own work", but I'm wondering if it can be converted to {{PD-logo}} since it looks to be below c:COM:TOO#United States. File is for en:Mars Hill Bible School and can be seen here. If not PD, then I think this would need to be deleted as COM:FAIR unless it's license can be OTRS verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly: given that this is a U.S. logo not involving any other country and it more or less has the complexity of those shown at COM:TOO#United States, {{PD-textlogo}} looks okay to me. seb26 (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

File:DanielaSedelke.jpg & File:Daniela Sedelke.jpg

Err were do I start? A local politician has uploaded these two images and claiming copyright; presumably to use on her article about herself by drafting it on Benutzerin Diskussion:Daniela Sedelke but has instead drafted on WC's User:Daniela Sedelke. Does WC have widget that can just transfer it all over to Facebook or something, as it is promotional and conflicts with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy too. I don't want to start deleting because like all politicians, their hearts are often in the right place but their brains are often scrambled. P.g.champion (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@P.g.champion: No, sorry, we just have Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Daniela Sedelke.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh well. I suppose thats how the cookie crumbles or in her case the aachener printen. P.g.champion (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Ravinder Bhalla.png

Can anyone tell me how I can determine if User:ShoppingCartographer really works for MSNBC, and is really authorized to upload this screenshot from this video on MSNBC's YouTube channel to the Commons, for use in his Wikipedia article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Anyone can upload a screenshot from that video as {{Cc-by-3.0}} per the license on YouTube, one doesn't have to work for MSNBC.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
This is allowable because of the license on the YouTube page. If you click on 'SHOW MORE' under MSNBC it says Licence - Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed). Verbcatcher (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow. That seems pretty unusual that a major commercial network would release material with a CC license on YouTube. Not that it necessarily matters to this particular case, but has anyone seen any documentation about this (e.g. an announcement by MSNBC or anything other than the existence of that license with the video)? — Rhododendrites talk |  03:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I have tagged it with {{LicenseReview}}, as MSNBC might change their mind. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Does it matter? That video is on MSNBC's official YT channel. Is its provenance in doubt? Nightscream (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The LicenseReview is not about doubting the license, it's about having an administrator or license reviewer mark that the license was in fact correct, so if it does change, we can look at it and say that we have reason to in fact trust the license on it was correct.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Photograph of old painting

I'd like to upload this image: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-138801616/view and another one just like it. The website clearly states that the painting is out of copyright due to the date of the author's death. However the website also states that "You may order a copy or use the online copy for research or study; for other uses Contact us.". Can I upload the image? Mrpalermo (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes -- (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Mrpalermo, yes, this 1891 work is out of copyright in the U.S. because of its publication date, and out of copyright in Australia because its author died before 1955. Use {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|Australia|deathyear=1922}} and {{PD-Australia}} as the license. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou and thankyou seb26 for the explaination -- Mrpalermo (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
If you are in Australia (or the UK), local law *might* mean there is a copyright on the photograph separate from the painting's copyright. Commons policy is to ignore that aspect in this particular case -- see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. It's up to the uploader if they want to take the risk or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
As far as we can tell, nobody in either country has ever been successfully sued for damages, or even been taken to court. It's bunkum. -- (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Also true. But there was a reason we created the PD-Art tag in the first place, so it's still good to point that out, so that people are aware. It may count as a protected "simple photo" in some countries, for example. It's good to be aware of the situation in the uploader's own country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Image of Prince Harry and JJ Chalmers

Is this image in the public domain, or is one version in the public domain and another licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0? I checked Flickr and saw the image tagged as CC-BY-SA. However, I also saw it in Defense.gov and Af.mil, implying that it is in the public domain. The photographer's profile says that his on-duty works are in the public domain. Which one is more correct, Flickr account or the typical PD-USGov stuff? George Ho (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, it is a military work and the CC license is not valid. There may be numerous reasons which could explain why the flickr photo has it labelled as CC, including it being a default setting in that user's flickr account, a casual oversight, etc. But if it was produced as part of the photographer's work for the DOD, then technically at no point was the power to decide licensing terms given to them. seb26 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Although the image doesn't include the EXIF matadata, the MoD did include the EXIF 'short title' of 160508-D-DB155-006.JPG. This exposure series appears on File:Prince Harry speaks during the opening ceremony (26811260352).jpg of the same event, which does show the full EXIF including the 'short title'. So CC does seem very inappropriate. For on a paid assignment as an employee, one can't switch back-and-forth. The CC copyright on on the latter is also questionable. Someone with more understanding of US Gov copyright may agree to strip out the CC and leave them as US Gov PD. P.g.champion (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyvios being overwritten with Japanese text

Can someone who reads Japanese please shed some light on what the small 180x30 pixel block of text says?

Users Fenrir Wolf, Taisyo, you are invited to this discussion. Could you please explain what your intention was when overwriting these images? I would like to know more, because we generally do not overwrite images that are copyright violations. If it is eligible to be speedily deleted and there is a clear source link, it is normally tagged with just {{Copyvio}}. There is no need to overwrite the image because administrators review copyvios very quickly. If there is no clear source link, then the deletion request process is used and 7 days are allowed to pass so that others can contribute. This time period is important because without a source link it is only an accusation or suggestion of copyright violation, and so it is fair to give time to the uploader to appropriately respond. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: The text is basically a notice which says that the file has been nominated for deletion and further details can be found on the file's DR subpage. In a sense it's the same information provided in the deletion template, just more general and in image form. Perhaps, this is something used on Japanese Wikipedia for local file deletions, if they use do such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The overwriting has now been reverted by Thibaut120094, citing COM:OVERWRITE. seb26 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Christmas lights?

Sometime in the next week I'm planning to head to a neighborhood of New York known for elaborate Christmas lights spectacles (Dyker Heights, Brooklyn for those in the area). It occurs to me FOP may be something I need to consider. I did a search for past discussions but haven't found anything definitive. To what extent are such displays copyrighted? — Rhododendrites talk |  02:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised at how difficult this has been to find an answer to. FWIW I've also asked on Reddit, with some responses but no real answer so far. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Also pinging Clindberg, who commented on a thread about this a few years ago (linking to a document that is now a broken link, with no backup on archive.org, unfortunately). — Rhododendrites talk |  20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course Christmas displays can be copyrighted; taking a modern painting or photo and displaying it in Christmas lights is going to have the same copyright as the original. The letter of the law is going to be stricter here than current practice, I think. I think ultimately any elaborate Christmas lights display is going to be technically copyrighted. Just tossing lights on a tree or a house won't, but careful design will. The Christmas lights the image at the top of this article, to grab one example, is hard for me, because a lot of it is dictated by the form of the objects the lights are surrounding, and some of the patterns are, I'm guessing, off the shelf. But ultimately I'm tending towards a copyright for the whole thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
That can be a tough question, since I'm not sure there is a lot of guidance about it. Kind of doubt a regular lighting display would be copyrightable, at least in the U.S. It's not in a fixed medium of expression. And you couldn't copyright anything as far as just following the form of trees that they are on, etc. -- the form would be dictated by those objects, not the person. The coloration and lighting effects also probably wouldn't count. But, if there are any sculptural works as part of the display... those would be copyrightable. And I guess if you strung lights together, in original delineations, in a self-supported display, that might count as a sculptural work. It wouldn't be the light aspect though -- if you used just normal strings (or whatever material) instead of lights, it would have to qualify for copyright as well. I'm not sure the selection and arrangement of a whole outdoor display is fixed in a medium, though. I'm sure many of the individual elements are copyrightable; the question is if the photograph is a derivative work of them, or if the elements qualify as "incidental" and the photograph not being derivative of them, but rather a wider scene. That could be a tough call, as I'm not sure I've read about a case along those lines. A lighting display in a NYC subway station was ruled uncopyrightable, although that was more just because of the simplistic shape (a grid of hexagons). A photo focusing on a particular copyrightable sculptural element would be derivative, but it gets harder depending on what else is in the frame. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

New User Questions

So I am making a new article and I want to pull some pics off bing images. How do I find out if they are copyrighted and if they are not am I still allowed to put them on my article? Also, confused about putting references in my article. It's just really complicated to me. idk Maybe i'll figure it out in the future, but right now I really need help. Weebeecool (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Weebeecool: Hi there. So you're actually asking this question on Wikimedia Commons, which is a sister site to Wikipedia. This site is where most of the media you see on Wikipedia is stored, and this is the right venue to ask questions about copyright of those pictures. If you're looking for help outside of pictures themselves, a good place to start is the Teahouse (if on the English Wikipedia). As for the images, by default you'll need to assume that an image is copyrighted and cannot be used except in rare cases. Can't say I'm all that familiar with Bing images, but with Google Image search (as with Flickr, etc.) you can limit search results based on license (in Google, click on "tools" → "usage rights" → "labeled for reuse with modification"). Creative Commons search is a way to pull search results from many places. If an image is not clearly labeled with a compatible license and there's no reason to think it's in the public domain (rules vary by country), then it can't be uploaded to Commons. That said, there are specific ways non-free images can be used on Wikipedia (and uploaded only to Wikipedia for use only in a particular article). For more about that see this page. — Rhododendrites talk |  05:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) (Probably redundant to the above) @Weebeecool: Bing is just a search site, so there’s nothing one can say about pics it finds in general—except that you should always assume images to be under the photographer’s or artist’s copyright unless there’s good evidence to the contrary. If Bing has a search filter for “free to use” or some such, that would be a good place to start. But you should go to the source page for each and look for a caption with credits or licence information. A website’s home page will often link to a terms-of-use or copyright page that explains the site’s licensing policies. If your browser can show EXIF metadata, there’s sometimes copyright or licence info there. See COM:LIC for the terms that are considered free enough to upload to Commons. You’re welcome to post links to specific images here for assessment if you’re not sure.
As for articles, we don’t have those here, so I assume you’re referring to one of the Wikipedias. Please ask at that project: the English Wikipedia has a Help desk and also a Teahouse for new editors.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
tl;dr - bing image has a search by license. https://blogs.bing.com/search/2013/07/01/searching-images-by-usage-rights/ select "filter by license" i.e. [1] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:WillDailey2013.jpg

Wondering if we can assume good faith with repsect to this file despite the apparent discrepency between the EXIF data and the information provided by the uploader? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A wrong date? No, don't think so. (Meaning, good faith should still apply.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
you realize we have many files that are uploaded decades after they are taken, and exif can be edited? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that is not a reason to ignore good faith. Just realized the question was phrased differently. If it is suspect, it would still be suspect with a correct date. I don't see a version on the Internet that predated the upload here, though. It does look like a professional publicity photo, but not sure where a source would be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not so much the difference between the EXIF data and the upload date, but rather the difference between the EXIF data and the date given by the uploader in the file's summary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This looks like the kind of professional shot taken of an artist/musician which the musician themselves or the agent comes along to Commons to upload for their respective article. It also seems to be all over the internet. I would tag it with NPD to encourage them or the photographer to write to OTRS the usual way. With EXIF differences, believe it or not, cameras are very often misconfigured. On a batch of images from a police force Flickr account I have been maintaining, I've found about 100 or so images that have EXIF range from 12am to 6am (even though they are clearly in the day), in 2004 instead of 2014 (when 2014 was written on a banner visible in the photo), and on 1 January 1980. Yes we should assume good faith about the date and just treat the image like other professional-looking images with no permission. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The date in the title, the description, and the upload date aren't all that different anyways -- just the EXIF is different. Unsure about NPD though -- there is no more and no less proof than most uploads. Not sure this existed on the Internet before upload -- that is usually the line we have for OTRS. It is not an obvious copyvio, nor does the uploader obviously not have the rights, so I don't think it qualifies for speedy at all. It has been here for five years without complaint -- would be more inclined to ask for clarification with an active uploader. It would depend on the contract with the photographer, but in many cases such things are in fact OK. Can understand the uncertainty, and a DR isn't unreasonable, but I won't nominate it (nor would argue much either way). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Seb26, Clindberg: Thanks for taking the time to take a closer look. The photo does seem to be a publicity shot of some kind, but I too was unable to find it published anywhere else online prior upload. I have no problem assuming good faith if that what others feel should be done. I was just a little unsure if the discrepancies between the EXIF data and the data provided by the uploader was a major cause for concern. FWIW, the uploader only has one edit to their credit on Commons (one other upload seems to have been deleted as copyvio) and appears to be an en:WP:SPA on English Wikipedia with respect to en:Will Dailey; therefore, there's a fair chance that the uploader is either Dailey himself or someone connected to him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright question abut illustration based on CC BY-SA photograph

If someone created an fairly photo realistic drawing based on a CC BY-SA photograph, is it required to credit the photographer? Is a drawing a derivative work or an entirely separate work?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Yes, it is required to credit the photographer and license the drawing CC BY-SA.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File deleted even though copyright permission sent by copyright holder

A file I uploaded was deleted, even though the copyright holder had sent permission by email. How do I resolve this and enable the file to reuploaded (as Wikicommons no longer allows me to do this, stating that the file was previously deleted)?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinHallmark (talk • contribs) 16:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
ColinHallmark, if they sent the permission by email, that's all that can be done on your part. Volunteers from the OTRS team are the ones that respond to the email but there are a large number of other queries at the moment. When they do respond and the permission is good to go, that member of the OTRS team will arrange for the image to be undeleted or undelete it themselves. Patience is all that's left at this point. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's useful.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinHallmark (talk • contribs) 09:12, 12 December 2017‎ (UTC)

Posting a modified still image from my own YouTube video to Commons

Suppose I have created and posted a YouTube video. I take a still image from the video that I think makes an excellent foundation for a Wikipedia article illustration. The image gets augmented with text, cropped, and otherwise manipulated, all by me. The resulting picture is quite different from my original video frame, though there remain similarities. Any issue with posting this, my own modified work, to Commons?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty123uiop (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
No problems whatsoever. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If your YouTube video has a non-free license then you may be asked to establish authorship using OTRS. Please consider assigning a commons-compatible license to your videos, unless you have already done so. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I found few images containing the current logo of Royal Dutch Shell where the logos do not qualify as de minimis. Can anybody point out a reason why the images can be considered free according to Wikimedia Commons requirements concerning derivative works? FOP? (the left image is from US, so no FOP...). Grandfathered? (well, no OTRS chance for free licence evidence for the right one; but was it reliable to believe we could receive one?) To simple for copyright? (in UK?).

The current logo (eg. accordimg to this article seems to be dated 1971, so copyright could not expire. Some Wikipedias present the logo SVG image as copyrighted Fair Use.

Maybe, I am missing something, but IMO the images should be nominated for deletion. Ankry (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright is likely expired in the U.S. due to publication without notice, if it's from 1971. And it sounds like the 1971 logo was designed by an American, so that may well be the country of origin anyways (sounds like the U.S. Shell Oil subsidiary was largely independent until the 1990s). And even if it is under copyright, it is still not obvious... that could qualify as the "incidental" part of the de minimis policy. For example, the Ets-Hokins decision said that a photograph of a bottle would not be derivative of a copyrightable label on the bottle (even if prominent in the photo); a photo would need to be focusing on the label in particular for it to be derivative. You could easily argue it is a photo of the entire price sign, and not focused on the logo in particular, and that the photo was not taken due to the expression in the logo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The shell is a conventional heraldic device (and IIRC this logo’s ancestor was actually excerpted from a coat of arms). The precise manner in which it’s drawn or painted (emblazoned in heraldic terms) is certainly copyrightable in general, but I think this instance falls below the USA’s TOO—assuming the designer was indeed American. Cf. the fleurs-de-lys among the examples at COM:TOO#United States.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

:File:At Santos, Brazil 2017 173.jpg

The work is located in Brazil where there is FOP. However, I doubt if we can consider this "accessory, and not detached from its surrounding elements." --Mhhossein talk 20:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. It is depicting the works in situ. It is not, for example, a photo of a public painting cropped to just be the painting (which would effectively be a reproduction). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Alex Mooney.jpg

This file is licensed as {{PD-USGov-Congress}}. There is, however, another file (File:MooneyAlex1.png) uploaded under a similar license which was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:MooneyAlex1.png. The uploader has reuploaded the deleted file locally to Wikipedia as en:File:Mooney1.png under the "PD-USGov-Congress", but that license has been questioned and is now being discussed at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 11#File:Mooney1.png. I realize that Commons and Wikipedia sometimes have different interpretations about certain types of licensing, but they should be pretty much in agreement when it comes to "PD-USGov" types of licenses. Anyway, the file's uploader has suggested during the Wikipedia discussion that the the local file and Commons file are the same photo, and that the Commons version is just zoomed in with the background colorized. If this is really the case, then that would make the Commons photo a derivative, wouldn't it? If so, then I believe the copyright status of not only the derivative, but also the original photo needs to be teken into account, right? Does anyone have any suggestion as to how this might possibly be sorted out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The other file was deleted because the nominator could not find it on the claimed source (memberguide.gpo.gov). This file is indeed at the named source, memberguide.gpo.gov. And I would agree that they are the same basic photo. The Commons version is higher-resolution. Unsure if the flag was added in the other photo, or the flag was removed in the memberguide.gpo.gov and Commons version (more likely). I see the other version at http://cpac.conservative.org/speakers/rep-alex-mooney/ and other places, though not on a .gov site. But I probably would just keep both as PD-USGov-Congress -- seems likely that different versions are used depending on the place, but if it was the official photo, it should be PD in either form. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Clindberg for taking a look. The uploader feels the file is PD. If, as you point out, there's a good chance that it is, then I think it would be better for them to start a c:COM:DRV to get the original file undeleted on Commons. I can't see a reason for keeping a PD-Gov-Congress file locally on Wikipedia because such a license is/should be just as valid for Commons. Even if the file is kept locally, someone will eventually tag it with en:Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons, but moving the file to Commons might just mean re-deletion unless the Commons issues are resolved first. English Wikipedia sometimes uses en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for some files, but that makes no sense for a PD-USGov file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I just think the nominator did not realize they were the same photo (understandable), and proceeded accordingly. If they were in fact different photos, there would have been no evidence for keeping it. But in light of that, yes I think I would undelete the other one (though explain the discrepancy with the noted source). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
how bitey. anything proven by shifting the burden to congressional staffers to prove this photo is on the web? you realize most of the state department head shots are dead links? want to challenge all of them? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

norden.org images

Found this image sourced from norden.org which states the license is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. However, the image on Commons is licensed under cc-by-2.5-dk and doesn't mention the non-commercial restriction. Is this a copyvio? @sikander (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@sikander: that Commons file was uploaded in 2013, I think it's more likely that the Norden.org site changed their licensing policy in the 4 years since then and that the image at the time was indeed available under that license at the time. Pinging @: as uploader for their information. seb26 (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Seb26: Ah, I just saw the Talk Page that explains the license change. @sikander (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspect photos of election candidates

User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2017_December_12_04:30#Monokamui_(16_edits) displays two photos that look like the campaign material of the two main candidates in tomorrow's Bennelong by-election.[2][3] I have approached the contributor at en:User talk:Monokamui#Bennelong candidate photos. Could someone better skilled at Commons copyright please review my actions and these photos? Thank you.--Scott (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Kuristenak.png (oddly named, no EXIF) matches the version on Twitter, including the blue background. I can’t find a match for File:Alexanderjohnsan.png (ditto) including the background, but quite a few close-cropped versions turn up in TinEye. I don’t think any more than that is needed to tag for them for SD and let an admin be the judge.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I suspect the second one is cropped from his MP page. --Scott (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
No doubt; I obviously didn’t look hard enough … I’ll go and up that one to SD as well.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Photos from eldiario.es

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Puigdemont, Junqueras y Turull, a la entrada de la reunión de Govern.jpg was closed today by Billinghurst as Deleted just three days after the discussion was started. The rationale was that "http://www.eldiario.es/licencia/ expressly excludes cc-by license covers third party works". Here is the actual text:

No se aplica a los contenidos (textos, gráficos, informaciones, imágenes...) publicados por eldiario.es procedentes de terceros que vayan firmados o sean atribuibles a agencias de información (EFE, Europa Press...) o a cualquier otra empresa diferente de Diario de Prensa Digital, S.L. Todos los derechos sobre estos contenidos quedan estrictamente reservados a su titular (la agencia) y, por tanto, no podrán ser reproducidos, distribuidos, transformados o comunicados públicamente sin el consentimiento expreso de su titular.

The photo in question comes from http://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/politica/Puigdemont_0_698531082.html, where the caption reads "© Sandra Lázaro". (And for anyone who going along with the erroneous assumption that free licenses and copyright are somehow antitheses of one another, I'd like to explicitly disabuse them of that notion; free copyright licenses depend on copyright to be enforceable. But perhaps Eldiario.es are confused too, and maybe this is their way of subtly hinting that their usual copyright licensing does not apply.) There is no mention of any news agency such as EFE or Europa Press and no indication that Lázaro is a third party. http://sandralazaro.com/sandra-lzaro states that Lázaro is an eldiario.es contributor.

As a somewhat separate issue, Eldiario.es seems to be quite sloppy about using other people's content and passing it off as their own:

Previous discussions that resulted in deletion because Eldiario.es apparently failed to identify third party news agency content as such


Previous discussions that resulted in deletion because Eldiario.es apparently nicked photos from other sources


Previous discussions that resulted in deletion because they were attributed to people who demonstrably do not work for Eldiario.es


Previous discussions with mixed outcome

But I'm having trouble reconciling the latest deletion discussion and the following ones:

Previous discussions that resulted in deletion for other reasons


Previous discussion that did not result in deletion

So this now begs the question: What do we do with the remaining photos in Category:Files from eldiario.es and its subcategories, in particular the other 81 photos in Category:Photographs by Sandra Lázaro (eldiario.es)? LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Plain answer: leave them and restore the deleted picture. Mind that all the pictures by Sandra Lázaro was handled in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KOKUYO (and remained). Provided that the pictures from eldiario.es (and I've been one of the most belligerant contributor looking for the source of an eldiario.es when it comes from a news agency) comes from one of the newspaper contributors (see also Category:Photographs by Marta Jara (eldiario.es) or Category:Photographs by Robert Bonet (eldiario.es), I can't see any reason for the deletion mentioned above. This issue starts to be boring (and discouraging, I should say) --Discasto talk 19:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I support Discasto's plain answer above.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Does not apply to the contents (texts, graphics, information, images ...) published by eldiario.es from third parties that are signed or attributable to information agencies (EFE, Europa Press ...) or any other company different from Diario de Prensa Digital, SL All rights to these contents are strictly reserved to their owner (the agency) and, therefore, can not be reproduced, distributed, transformed or communicated publicly without the express consent of the owner.

—translate.google.com of eldiario.es license

  •   Comment here we have the request by the person claiming to be the photographer, and stating that they are an external party to the hosting website. They particularly cite the copyright information page and explain that they fit into the exception/exclusion criteria. The metadata in this photograph has a copyright statement, and there is no statement about creative commons release. Their claim over a photograph and the contractual obligation are better known to them, and similarly their conditions of use by the website. It is evident that they believe that the photograph that is the subject of the DR is theirs, not released, and not put into the public domain. [None of the above discussion was linked to from the DR, nor on the talk page of the image. Decision was solely for the single image where the copyright was claimed. In reading the last mentioned DR, the argument presented in the the specific DR has not been directly addressed, and it does not have the claim of the photographer for their understood status of contribution.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    (continuing) here we have an image that is signed (see translation that not covered by license) and this image has © photographer name  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    Billinghurst: So what is your recommended course of action for the remaining photos in Category:Files from eldiario.es and its subcategories, in particular the other 81 photos in Category:Photographs by Sandra Lázaro (eldiario.es)? LX (talk, contribs) 10:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    I don't have an opinion on them at this point of time. I was dealing with files labelled for speedy deletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    So this deletion was so urgent that the ongoing deletion discussion had to be cut short, but 81 files with identical source and authorship gets nothing but a shrug? LX (talk, contribs) 15:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    The point with Sandra Lázaro is somehow different from that of Robert Bonet (an actual "author" at eldiario.es (see here)) but similar to that of Marta Jara (not listed as author). The phrasing in the eldiario.es license is also unclear and the point is to which extent a photographer is a "third party". The actual wording seems to refer to news agencies (Todos los derechos sobre estos contenidos quedan estrictamente reservados a su titular (la agencia)) and not to individual photographers, especially when they explicitly mention that they (only) collaborate with eldiario.es (according to Sandra Lázaro's web site). I already noticed that the metadata of the images show a copyright mention (and explicit copyright notices at the pictures description as well) but the DR (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KOKUYO) as closed without considering such copyright mentions as a reason to delete. I have no opinion here (I don't actually know what eldiario.es means when refering to third parties and what kind of relationship exists between Sandra Lázaro and eldiario.es). However, an OTRS request would be needed (and for sure would require an ACK from eldiario.es and would apply to the whole set of images by Sandra Lázaro). My two cents. --Discasto talk 23:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

File:TOPWIKICO B291046 copy.tiff

Can Commons accept this file as licensed? Based upon a discussion at en:User talk:Marchjuly#NEW JANE BOYD ARTICLE, I think the uploader/photographer might be en:Jane Boyd, the artist who created the work. Are there any c:COM:FOP#France concerns which need to be addressed when the uploader, photographer and artist are all the same person? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Looks like it's already been published on the artist's website (where there's no indication of either of the licenses posted with the file). Since that means it would need to go through COM:OTRS anyway (unless she adds the license to her website), FOP probably isn't a concern. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Qing Dynasty abd Taisho era books

I found this old Qing Dynasty book 📖 here (Myeoodprints.free.fr), from which I can see this book is in the public domain, but as I'm not familiar enough with Chinese/Taiwanese copyright laws, I'm not sure if I can upload this book here. I can’t find the date 📅 that this book 📖 was published, the author’s name is Zhou Kong Tu (Chinese/Taiwanese characters: 周孔徒), according to Antichristendom.com he died in 1910 (at least if my Chinese/Taiwanese is still as good as it used to be).

Disclaimer: I am an Atheist ⚛ and have no affiliation with Chinese philosophy, Christianity, Anti-Christianity, Etc. I purely want to upload this book 📖 here for historical preservation.

I’m pretty sure that books like Chronicles of the Eastern Zhou Kingdoms, the 4 ancient poems, and The rites of Zhou are in the public domain.

Separate from the above there is another Japanese coin collectors’ catalogue 📇 I could potentially upload here, apparently like the previous two I uploaded these are provided by Dr. Luke Roberts of the University of California at Santa Barbara (a man who never paid me to upload ancient books here, just as a quick disclaimer), but this book is a bit more recent coming from the 4th year of the Taisho era (1915). As I am not familiar with Japanese copyright © laws I can’t be certain if this is old enough (as I know that not all countries recognise 1923 as “the public domain “year”).

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've checked and the Qing Dynasty book is PD, but I'm not sure about the Japanese Taisho era book yet. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

If the author died in 1910, the book is in public domain now both in China (year of death + 50 years) and USA (published before 1923). Ruslik (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, and Category:Kosen nedantsuki shall be live in a jiffy. I shall mark this section as resolved. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚)  11:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Old French illustrations

Are these images protected by copyright? I'm not familiar enough with French copyright © laws to upload them, if I can upload them here, where should I categorise them? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 08:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Any idea how old they are? Unless we know the author or can verify that they were published anonymously, according to {{PD-old-assumed}}, we shouldn't be uploading them until they are at least 120 years old. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Most of them, probably—nineteenth-century anyway—but the printer is apparently still in business, and could have produced any number of new pieces (but ‘retro‘ in style) more recently, so I think each item should be researched as to attribution & date. For anonymous or collective works, to be clear in the USA as of the URAA date they’d need to have been published before 1926. There’s probably a catalogue somewhere …—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
For French works, probably closer to 1936 to avoid the URAA. France's anonymous term was 50 years from publication (probably also adding wartime extensions) in 1996. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This image has the text "Exposition 1900", which presumably means it was published in connection with the w:en:Exposition Universelle (1900). It is reasonable to conclude that other items with a similar style and sequence number were published at about this time. Some of the items appear later, and were probably published between the wars. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo.jpg

On Flickr it is licenced under CC-BY-2.0, but as a work of an US Government agency's employee it should be PD and PD only, right? --jdx Re: 13:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Rather not since works of the US Gov are PD in the US and not Europe for example. Natuur12 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a difficult question whether they are PD in Europe or not. That may be country-by-country. But yes, the CC-BY license can possibly still help in other countries, so adding PD-USGov may make sense. But the CC-BY license is also valid (just not necessary in the U.S.), so it can remain as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Digitised Sky Survey copyright again

There is an image on Italian WP which is copyright but has an interesting OTRS ticket. I think it applies to all DSS images, not just the one it is shown on, but stops short of being usable on Commons. Is there anything we can do with it or is it just too restrictive? Lithopsian (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Too restrictive. I can't see the OTRS ticket, but it sounds like they got Wikipedia-only permission, which is not free. it-wiki is using it under their Exemption Doctrine Policy (i.e. fair use), and have noted the Wikipedia-only permission which would additionally protect Wikipedia itself (i.e. Wikipedia is allowed to use it beyond fair use), but does not help others. It's basically a fair-use image with some slight additional non-free permissions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Lithopsian: I can see Ticket:2009052010051757. It does not grant permission for Commons, nor for commercial use. Derivatives are not even mentioned. Given that eight years have passed, I would recommend new permission requests to current agency officials, mentioning COM:L and COM:CONSENT.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Uraa help page

Since there are a lot of country without FOP, in order to avoid misunderstandings I made this edit. Please check it. Thanks --Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I reverted, because it is not clear that architectural works were restored by the URAA. Works were only restored if they either 1) failed to comply with formalities, not the case with architectural works, 2) lacked national protection (i.e. a country did not have copyright relations with the U.S.), or 3) "lacked subject matter protection in the United States in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972". The law seems to explicitly limit the restorations where the issue was lack of subject matter protection to sound recordings, and that would have been the clause most applicable for architectural works. The U.S. does not consider photographs of buildings to be derivative works anyways (regardless of where the building is), so it would only really come up if there was a U.S. architectural reproduction of a pre-1990 building from outside the U.S. which was still under copyright in its source country. Not sure it has come up in a court case. It's not *impossible* that they were restored, but the "subject matter protection" clause in the URAA law is very specific and does seem to exclude architectural works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Tanks. Right. But now doesn't seem to say that any picture of every building in every country (before 1990) it is in PD in the USA? Doesn't it? This is exactly what wrote to me a user yesterday. "I shoot a photo of a building in Italy before the 1990. It is in PD in the United States". So since you are expert of the matter please evaluate it.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The building is PD, but the photo is not. The photo would be fine (if licensed) for the U.S. part of Commons policy, regardless of the copyright status of the building, but not the country of origin of the building. Such photos can usually be uploaded to en-wiki. I may be misunderstanding your question though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Public Domain in Iran

I wanted to be sure about copyright in Iran. in article 16 it's written that "works fall into public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation" so is it necessarily be published in public or every picture after 30 years (even if it was published after ten years) will be in public domain? File:Naghsh-e Jahan Pars Consulting Company.jpg MasoodHA (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@MasoodHA: Without evidence it was published or presented in public before 2005 or permission via OTRS, we must assume the copyright term extends through 2035, and delete per COM:PRP.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Scans of old Japanese banknotes

On this web-page there are several scans of old Japanese banknotes, these banknotes themselves are already in the public domain, however when a photograph is taken of them the photographs themselves usually get copyrighted, my question is, are these scans considered to be “scans of 2D objects” and thus sufficiently “non-original” enough to be PD-scans? I will check which banknotes are already on Wikimedia Commons so I shan’t be producing any duplicates if they are indeed PD-scans, but I’m curious if I am allowed to upload them even though the scans were made in the modern era.

Are banknotes even considered “2D objects”?

Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

They are just 2D images. Ruslik (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I will be uploading them as I will have the time. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 13:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 13:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Mushroom Observer files

While reviewing the licenses of the files from Mushroom Observer, I came across file with vague copyright status. In the source link for those files, there's a CC-NC icon which does not allow commercial use and hence is free enough for WM Commons. There's also a timeline section showing the licensing had probably altered. Some of the files are as follows:

Now, are these files really free enough? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 12:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, CC licenses are not revocable. We should add the {{Change-of-license}} tag though. It would be good to do a license review while there is still evidence of the free license at the source. We should only allow files that were imported here while the license was the free one there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karl Kanol. Children Games copy-1.pdf

Hallo, I've made the aforesaid DR. But i'm at the end of my knowledge. The uploader claims that he is in possession of the physical image including all rights. Is this ever possible? At least in Germany this is not possible, because he is not the artist's hair heir. Thank you for your comments. --Ras67 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You probably meant wikt:heir? not wikt:hair? Ruslik (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, thank you --Ras67 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:GobiernoEspaña - Images with broken sources

Hello everybody, a couple of weeks ago Discasto opened a discussion in the Copyright Village Pump on {{GobiernoEspaña}} in order to clarify its status. As you can read here there was no opposition to handle it as with other similar Spanish government templates (for instance, {{Attribution-gencat}}, which has the same legal conditions). Mind that the previous consensus was that only images published before 2012 in lamoncloa.gob.es were valid (there was a license change in 2012 and that was the reason not to consider images from lamoncloa.gob.es free any more).

Therefore, since images coming from "Pool-Moncloa" are considered free without restrictions (but attribution) I proceeded to restore all the images that were deleted on the grounds of uncompatible licenses (I've been able to deduce which are such images, as I was involved in the management of La Moncloa licensing conditions). As part of the process, we process to "LicenseReview" all the images (both the undeleted and the ones that remained, as they were published before 2012). Unfortunatelly, we've noticed that some of the images that remained in commons (that is, those from before 2012) are not available in lamoncloa.gob.es any more. The site may have moved them to a different location or delete them, so now there are thirty one images with broken source in Category:Images from the Government of Spain with a broken source which seem to be irretrievably (tried in the Wayback Machine without luck). At the moment, some of them have a DR opened: See this, this and this other, for example. It is important to highlight that, in the process of deleting images published after 2012, the ones that remained were carefully scrutinised. At the moment, the use of {{LicenseReview}} was considered as not necessary.

A site has the right to move or remove their own material and that is something indiscutible and inevitable, but this fact should not affect Commons, as it does not affect us either when any Flickr images change their license in the site after they have been verified in Commons. In my opinion I consider once an image is uploaded here with a valid source and has been verified it should be kept.

Anyway, as this is only my point of view, I would like to put the issue under the community opinion to decide what to do with these images. In particular, given that the images were reviewed, although no {{LicenseReview}} was used, I consider that at least those currently used in any project (there's a handful of them that cannot be replaced by a picture of similar quality) should remain. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  •   Keep IMHO, the images (some of them uploaded by me, for instance... as I was an admin at the moment, I'd like to think I was a trusted user and my uploads could be regarded as valid) were considered valid at the moment. The fact that no actual "stamp" was put on the images shouldn't be a problem for keeping the images, especially those that cannot be replaced. A fair compromise could be deleting only those pictures not actually used. --Discasto talk 20:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I have no objection to these Category:Images from the Government of Spain with a broken source images being kept with the suggested {{GobiernoEspaña}} template. lamoncloa.gob.es images were free and I don't doubt they were available upon upload many years ago. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep Images were released without restrictions, even thought they are not available in the Spanish Government web any more because political reasons (they are images of former Governmet Politicians from a different party from the ruling one). --Cvbr (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been twelve days without objections to keep the remaining images with broken sources, therefore I'll proceed to close the DRs and remove the no source warnings. Thank you for your attention. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Derivatives of possibly non-free images

File:Ipoh Emblem.svg and File:Petaling Jaya Emblem.svg are licensed as {{PD-user}} even though they appear to be derivative works based upon the crests/logos found at mbpj.gov.my. Unless it can be clearly shown that the source images are clearly in the epublic domain or have been released under a free license, I'm not sure Commons can accept these files per COM:FAIR and COM:PCP.

My understanding is that a derivative work based upon something else can in some cases be eligible for copyright protection on its own, but the copyright of the original source image still needs to be taken into account. Both of these svg files look to be based upon en:File:Mbipoh.jpg and en:File:MBPJ.png, which are licensed as non-free for use on English Wikipedia. So, if these Commons files are acceptable, the non-free files would be no longer needed. I realize that taking png files and converting them to svg may be seen as establishing a new copyright which in turn can be licensed as "PD-user", etc.; however, the question is still whether this "new" copyright means that the copyrights of the original files are no longer applicable. I don't think that's the case, but I might be missing something here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding File:Flag of Ipoh, Perak.svg since this also does not appear to have been released as licensed. If the crest on the flag is considered to be under copyright protection, then the entire flag would seem to be COM:FAIR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: All three files have no evidence of the claimed license at the claimed source, I tagged them accordingly.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Molecule Extraction.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at these Jeff G.. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Emily Beecham 2017 2b.jpg

Since File:Emily Beecham 2017 2b.jpg is a crop of File:Emily Beecham at The British Independent Film Awards 2017.jpg, I am wondering if the same OTRS info from the source file should be added to the cropped version as well, or if just linking to the source file and filling in the |other versions= parameter is sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

We generally only apply the OTRS tag to the original file. It's sufficient to link to the OTRS-confirmed image as the source. Guanaco (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Guanaco. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

David Galula sketches

File:David Galula Scan-080918-0001.jpg, File:David Galula img 1995.jpg - these sketches appear to be derived from this non-free image: [4], without attribution. I'm not sure of the copyright implications in that, so I'm leaving this note for input. Thanks. -- Begoon 00:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

They were already nominated for deletion and kept. The drawings may be far enough away from the photo to not be derivative works. The angle of the head is very close, but that is about the only expression copied from the photograph. (The photographer does not get a copyright on what the subject looks like). The underlying photo is probably PD in the EU as well (French government work from 1940). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Astronaut High School Logo.png

I doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder of this school logo, so {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} seems wrong. However, I am wondering if public schools in Florida would be covered by {{PD-FLGov}}. If they are, then maybe this file's licensing just needs to be tweaked. If they aren't, then I think this needs to be tagged with {{Fair use}} since I can't find it released under a free license at astronaut.hs.brevard.k12.fl.us. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that public schools are covered by PD-FLGov, but also that this was not created by the state, and likely the artist who did create holds copyright to it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I thought that might be the case, but wasn't sure. I'm not sure if there's a way to determine who created the logo since there doesn't seem to be any info about it on the school's official website. I guess the school could email OTRS to release the file under a free license if they are the original copyright holder, but otherwise maybe this file can't be kept. Which would be better in this case: {{Npd}}, {{Fair use}} or COM:DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

FOP in Italy

There are many pictures of Ancient Capua here, but there's no freedom of panorama in Italy, does this include ancient cities such as Capua or only modern architecture? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 14:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And yes some of those pictures 📷 are "© All rights reserved" but others aren't, and Flickr2Commons automatically detects which ones. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 14:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

They are very old buildings. Copyright has expired a long time ago. The only problematic is this one it's a derivative work. -- Geagea (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 16:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 16:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
FOP in Italy doesn't matter here. Only US law. Correct me if I'm wrong though so I can avoid future mistakes. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd: in strictly legal terms that’s probably true, because the servers are in the USA. However, Commons policy requires that media be free in both the country of origin and the USA, to maximize reusability. (The English Wikipedia only concerns itself with US law, but its policies are also more restrictive than that would allow, for the same reason: for example, material under a non-commercial licence is not considered free there either.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479:Thanks! I can't find this policy in the help pages, do you have a link so I can read the details about this? W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd: the gist of it is at COM:LIC#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. I haven’t looked into the details of how the policy was developed—there are probably old discussions somewhere–but it’s been in place for at least ten years.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Are these images PD-scans?

On the internet there are lots of scans of old banknotes, banknotes so old that they're no longer protected by copyright ©. A good example would be this Honan Province Bank banknote, or this one from Pinterest (or this entire gallery), a lot of these images are really useful. But usually the websites are entirely protected by copyright having licenses like “© All rights reserved.” (being the most common one), are these images un-original enough to be suitable for Wikimedia Commons? They appear simply as 2D objects to me, but I don't want to accidentally upload copyrighted scans.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 14:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright generally applies to original and creative works. If you draw a mustache and eyebrows on a dollar bill from 1917, you may get copyright for the mustache and eyebrows. (but not for the dollar bill itself, obviously) Scanning an image, compressing and/or resizing it would make no difference to the copyright status. (ripping a CD to mp3 files does not give you copyright) A photograph however may be copyrighted as the object could be photographed from some creative angle.
Any copyright these sites claim is probably concerning articles they wrote and their webdesign. Depending on the origin of the bill, copyright may not apply at all. Check the copyright status of File:U.S._hundred_dollar_bill,_1999.jpg for details. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, and I shall begin uploading them now. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

|link= does not agree with CC-BY

Sameboat added and Huntster re-added |link= to Template:PDF_version_available/layout, for File:Pdf_by_mimooh.svg, which is published under cc-by-sa-3.0 and is (in my opinion) above the threshold of originality, therefore adding |link= is a clear copyright infringement, without naming neither the source nor the author.

In the German Wikipedia this is defined quite clear:

  Achtung: Nur bei gemeinfreien Bildern (vom Autor als gemeinfrei angegeben oder Bild ohne Schöpfungshöhe) darf verweis angegeben werden! Ansonsten entspricht die Einbindung nicht mehr der angegebenen Lizenz, die einen Link zur Dateibeschreibungsseite erfordert.
 — de:Hilfe:Bilder#Von_der_Dateibeschreibungsseite_abweichendes_Linkziel

To have a "neutral" translation I take the unedited translation of Google Translate:

  Attention: Only in public domain pictures (as indicated by the author as public domain or picture without height of creation) may be given reprimand! Otherwise, the integration is no longer the specified license, which requires a link to the file description page.
  Note: Only public domain images (specified by the author into the public domain or picture without original authorship ) must verweisbe specified! Otherwise, the integration no longer meets the specified license that requires a link to the description page.
 — :de:Help:Images#Different from the file description page

The reply of Huntster was:

"I'm not terribly familiar, but it appears this formatting is pretty widespread amongst such templates."

That reminds me on:

"The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained."

Neither because it pretty widespread to make copyright infringements nor someone don't know the rules, does not allow anyone to make copyright infringements on commons.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-public-domain images should not use link= . You could argue that using link= even with PD images may violate attribution moral rights in some countries, but that has been common practice on such templates. However, we cannot do that with anything where the copyright license mandates attribution. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
CC-BY files used within Wikimedia sister projects are never ever given attribution beyond their own file description pages. Remove the image if you're so concerned by this common practice. I don't care. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The file description page is enough, but you have to let people get there. Disabling the link to the file description page (which is what the above discussion is about) means you can't see that description page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This would conflict with the manual of style which requires image icon in many cases unlinked to avoid confusing the reader. But I agree this is unfortunately a design oversight of the wiki software where ideally it should automatically generate title attribute of author-attribution. Until then I would rather remove the image altogether if no Public Domain substitute available. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Which ones require unlinked? The policies I remember do mention the need for attribution for non-PD images, like w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. So yes, if the desire is to have no links, the best alternative is to find a PD icon, or remove it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should add this information also to commons?  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 21:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 21:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Book of unknown age and origin

I found this book 📖 written with illustrations and commentaries about the Rites of Zhou (周禮), it is probably Korean but it has no known author nor does the owner of the copy (and the website mywoodprints.free.fr) know which entity published it. This book predates modern North-Korea and South-Korea, and was probably published before 1923. But as both the authorship and publisher of this are unknown I’m not sure if it would be safe to upload this to Wikimedia Commons.

P.S. If I were to upload this here I would create a category Category:Rites of Zhou which would be subordinate to “Category:Books of China” while this book is Korean, should I create a whole separate category for this commentary? Or should I make it supplementary to the Chinese work and categorise it as such?

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Evópoli2.png

Can Commons accept this file as {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-shape}}? If it can, then I cannot see a reason it also shouldn't accept the non-free en:File:Political Evolution, Evópoli, party logo, Chile.png under the same license. The only difference between the two is the party name, but I don't believe that simple text is considered to be something which is eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The file on enwiki was uploaded as non-free by @Raperi:, possibly due to an abundance of precaution. I agree with you.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Tasnim News

I uploaded this image from Tasnim and you can see Tasnim's logo behind the person. I can't find the author. Should I delete it? MasoodHA (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@MasoodHA: No, File:Tasnim News Agency logo 2color rounded square.png and File:Tasnim.jpg are {{CC-BY-4.0|attribution=Tasnim News Agency}}, but thanks for asking.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Flickr images of Renee Neufville deleted on Flickr

I clicked this Flickr link and found out that it no longer exists. I checked archive.org; the previous versions direct a user to the "404 Not Found" page. The author's profile also no longer exists. I checked the past links; they also direct to the same 404 message. Is the copyright status affected by this? George Ho (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: No, User:Flickr upload bot checked the irrevocable licenses upon upload.   — Jeff G. ツ ping or talk 02:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Iwoca logo 2017.png

I'd like some other opinions on this logo. It is a UK logo and it is just text but knowing the sweat of the brow status of the UK I can't really be sure whether or not it is PD-textlogo. It certainly seems like it would be the same as the Edge logo mentioned on the UK section of the TOO page. I just can't really be sure. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: It looks like it took less sweat than the Edge logo.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Great. Thank you! --Majora (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

CC journal article that includes possibly non-free content

If an article or other site is open-licensed but includes some material created by others, can we assume that the others have granted open-license even if the article or site where it is used does not say so? As a specific example, File:Second Culture, Good Vibrations, and Writings on the Wall : Hip-Hop in the GDR as a Case of Afro-Americanophilia Figure 3 : Graffiti Frust.png is an image in doi:10.5130/portal.v12i2.4397, a journal article that asserts CC-BY-4.0. The article is about graffiti; it includes this image as an example for purposes of critical commentary and cites the image as being copyrighted and from the collection of the graffiti artist. But the article does not assert that the artist released the image under a free license, and the use in the article would fall within fair-use. Does the fact that the article is CC allow us to presume that the article's author has gotten license release for that included content? DMacks (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Where there‘s a separate, specific photo or illustration credit, I would say no per COM:PCP. The image could be there under fair use/dealing, a limited licence (often marked “by permission of” or similar), or indeed the same terms as the article itself. The presence of a © symbol certainly doesn’t preclude the existence of a free licence, but it prompts the question of precisely what rights it means to assert. That said, the photos are nowhere said to be exempt from the licence AFAICT, and there are no explicit conditions accompanying the credits, so I wouldn’t want to bet on the outcome of a DR.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@DMacks: My rule of thumb is generally to only assume that content is under an open license if it was created by the credited authors of the article or site that is open license. Third party non-free content is very often included in open license content, but retains its own copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. This also holds true of U.S. government websites. Just because something appears on a U.S. government website doesn't automatically make it public domain. Kaldari (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Gerard van Honthorst - Adoration of the Shepherds (1622).jpg

From OTRS ticket:2017122710001181 The image on commons is PD based on the death date of the author. However, it appears that the original picture is at http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=46662, and is not quite the same picture. The original poster suspects it might be an attempt at a much later copy. I can see that as it's somewhat different, and then "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain" may not apply, and we may not know the true author's death date. Some second opinions would be appreciated. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The Commons' image is attributed to the same artist. Probably, he painted two different works. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright of US Government publication

Hi there. I wanted to upload this photo and license it as a US Government publication. However, the IPTC info clearly states that the photo is copyright protected. Could I get an opinion about this? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You should read this. Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The metadata also indicates the photo was taken by Pete Souza, official White House photographer, so it is public domain in the U.S. Animalparty (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Wars/toys "R" Us

File:Toy_Industry.jpg is probably okay to keep here, but I think it needs to be tagged. But I don't know with what. De minimis? Trademark? Parody (assuming there is a tag for that)? W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Likely no copyright issue, though probably trademark-fair-use. Trademark tag, possibly. Image also exists on Flickr with a CC0 license (https://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherdombres/4573808899 ; same author). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Facebook

Is it possible to upload files to Commons not allowing third parties to use the files on Facebook pages? See User:Ralf Roletschek/Autor2 and its usage for example at File:14-06-04-olomouc-RalfR-19.jpg. (Ping @Ralf Roletschek:) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently you can't post CC-BY licensed files (except your own work) to Facebook, because you can't give Facebook the license they demand [5]. I expect such fine legal points are generally ignored though. --ghouston (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed: Ralf Roletschek is not imposing any special restrictions on his uploads but just explicitly points out the fact that you're not allowed to upload third-party CC-licensed files to Facebook. This applies to all CC-BY(-SA) type licenses. It's just not that widely known. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
yes, of course. however, it is unclear what the meaning off SA is, since we have yet to see a court case enforcing it. maybe a gofund me legal fund. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Does it mean that person who uploads pictures licensed e. g. CC-BY-SA 4.0 from Commons to Facebook violates the licence conditions? I am asking because Wikipedia Facebook page (which seems to be maintained by Wikimedia Foundation) does it quite frequently, for example this album. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
And what about pictures at the Commons Wikimedia Facebook page? Does Commons Wikimedia violate its own rules? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The WMF should really ask uploaders for the right to post their work on Facebook, but IANAL.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Nobody asked me and my photos are there. --Ralf Roleček 08:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

An wen muß ich mich wenden, daß meine Fotos dort auf Facebook gelöscht werden? --Ralf Roleček 00:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Am einfachsten wohl an den Account, der sie dort gepostet hat, unter Verweis auf Verletzung der Lizenz. Sollten Vertreter der WMF CC-BY-SA-lizenzierte Fotos Dritter selbst auf Facebook hochladen, während andere Vertreter der WMF uns auf besagter Meta-Seite erklärt haben, dass genau das von der Lizenz her nicht möglich ist, wäre das wohl ein klassischer Fall von "die linke Hand weiss nicht, was die rechte tut" und die verantwortlichen Personen wären anzusprechen.... Gestumblindi (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This is interesting. If you upload a photo to Commons with CC license, you give anyone permission to re-use that photo using the same license. But Facebook states "you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook". I think you actually can upload CC photos to Facebook. (assuming you provide attribution and the license) In this case you are not really violating the CC license, because you didn't give Facebook their infinite transferable ha-ha-we-sold-your-photos license. You didn't do that, because you simply can't. And having provided attribution (as required by the CC license) you have made it clear to FB you do not own the copyrights to the photo. You did break the FB terms of use though, so they could delete your account. (or burn your house down, I don't know what the FB terms of use say) But really, I could be wrong. This is pretty complicated. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Blur video game cartridge?

File:Watara.JPG, the Crystball image on the cartridge. Probably the same as File:Watara_supervision.jpg in which the cartridges had to be blurred. I can do the actual blurring if needed, I'm just here to ask if I should. W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't this technically fall under de minimis? The two euro coin is also copyrighted (see: Commons:Currency) and it doesn't have to be blurred. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 15:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I have added the de minimis tag, but I'm not sure it covers it. The euro coin is there just so you can judge the size of the item. The console and cartridge are the subject of the picture. If it is covered by de minimis, I'm good. W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory licensing information

File:The Flat Earth Society Logo.png was recently uploaded by @WakingJohn: under CCBYSA 4. The source indicates toward the top that it is available for reuse under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/; however, at the bottom it also indicates All Content Copyright 2016 The Flat Earth Society. So... yeah. GMGtalk 18:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The content of the site is copyright whether or not parts of it are available under license. The meta tags on the image clearly show the license. The source has been updated as well to say it is available under available under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ --WakingJohn (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
WakingJohn, I understand you're affiliated with the organization. I guess my question to others is whether this needs an email to OTRS per instructions at COM:CONSENT, or whether the line on the website will suffice, give the apparent contradiction. GMGtalk 18:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, I'm happy to verify this via email, and will read the steps to take. --WakingJohn (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, This has been done. --WakingJohn (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Got it. I added the template to the file indicating that an OTRS verification is pending. Should just about wrap things up then. GMGtalk 18:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I don’t think we need an email sent to OTRS. I had already done a license review before you added the OTRS tag. It should be sufficient for Commons. Green Giant (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... well I guess we should have waited for a second opinion. I suppose we can always just let the OTRS happen. I suppose that would be more persistent than a link if the website ever changes or goes down? GMGtalk 18:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure, no problem although it might take a while to be processed. Just so it’s clear, the license review process exists so we can verify that a license was where the uploader said it was. Even if the website is changed later, the Review informs users that the irrevocable license still applies. Green Giant (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure why this question continues to appear one time after another? I am also not sure why people are so confused by All Content Copyright 2016 The Flat Earth Society? How on the Earth they would be able to license their work if they did not have a copyright in it? Ruslik (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, almost needs to be a FAQ or something. This comes up fairly regularly. But yes, "Creative Commons License" and "All Rights Reserved" / copyright notice are completely compatible -- in fact you would expect the latter to be there when you are licensing something. If there is no copyright, there is nothing to license. Simply declaring that the copyright exists (which they are in turn licensing) is just fine. A Creative Commons license is *not* the same thing -- at all -- as no copyright. There are requirements in those licenses, and if not followed, usage is just as much of a copyright violation as using something unlicensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I mean... I'll never claim to be an expert. I figure it's better to ask the question and be wrong rather than not ask the question and be right. GMGtalk 20:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep, absolutely. We all had to figure that out once ourselves. And I'm sure once you do know it, there will be others who come along and ask the same question ;-) (Or the "all rights reserved" variant, which I'll expand on below). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it just me or is this question just a little bit silly? There is no contradiction. Making your work available using a CC-BY variant license does not void your copyright. CC is based on copyright. You are perhaps confusing "All Content Copyright" with "All rights reserved". Even CC0 probably doesn't void copyright. (it does for all intents and purposes though) W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, even "all rights reserved" is perfectly fine, and gets just as much confusion (and answers here from time to time). "All Rights Reserved" was basically just claiming that a copyright existed under the w:Buenos Aires Convention; it was the equivalent of a copyright notice for the w:Universal Copyright Convention. So, the typical habit was to have both a copyright notice and "all rights reserved" together, so it would be covered under either copyright convention. These days, all countries in those have also joined the Berne Convention, so there is no real need -- but old habits die hard. And they still help to preclude innocent infringement. But even together they are not contradictory either. It is somewhat unfortunate that Creative Commons made a play on that phrase with "Some rights reserved", but despite the similarity, they are not mutually exclusive since the former is talking about reserving the rights, and the latter about licensing them, in exactly the same way a copyright notice does with a CC-BY-XX license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... I should post well intentioned by apparently obviously wrong things here more often. It's very educational. GMGtalk 21:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

ناقض حق تکثیر؟

سلام. عکسهایی از وب‌گاهی که خودم مدیرش هستم آپلود کردم. البته اگر خودم هم مدیر وب‌گاه نباشم، در قسمت پایین وب‌گاه (کپی رایت) ذکر شده که "استفادﮦ از کلیۀ محتوای این وب‌گاه آزاد است ". بنابراین این وب‌گاه اجازه تکثیر عکسها را آزاد اعلام کرده و من هم همه عکسها را از این وب‌گاه آپلود کردم. اما با این وجود برای من پیام هشدار آمده که عکسها به زودی حذف خواهند شد. لطفا کمک کنید که حذف نشوند. ممنونم.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesatamo (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 December 2017‎ (UTC)

Copyright infringement? ... Hello. I uploaded photos from the website I myself am a manager of. Of course, if I'm not a webmaster, I'll mention at the bottom of the website (copyright) that "the use of all the content of this site is free." So the site allows you to reproduce the photos and I uploaded all the photos from this site. But nevertheless, I am warned that photos will be removed soon. Please help not to be deleted. thank you.

translator: Google Translate (from Persian)
@Sesatamo: Please read COM:L.   — Jeff G. ツ ping or talk 04:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: the user has modified the website content to indicate that images are published under CC BY-SA 3.0 so you can go ahead and restore them. Please ping me, once restored, to review them one more time to ensure accuracy of license claims. Huji (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Huji: I did not delete them. I don't have access to the that website, the affected files, or undeletion functionality here. You, Sesatamo, or Modern Sciences may request undeletion via COM:UD.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I also don't have sysop access here, so I just assumed you were pinged because you had deleted them. Apologies, and thanks for the response. I made a request on COM:UD Huji (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

License of a Japanese virtual character

The image File:KizunaAI.png was uploaded with the claim "It is allowed to create secondary work". However, my machine translation of the copyright terms suggests this may not be compliant with Commons use. From using Google Translate (see below), apparently article 3.1 allows making derivatives, yet 3.2 and 3.3. preclude commercial reuse (emphasis added). Can someone more knowledgeable in copyright (or fluent in Japanese) weigh in? The character is apparently the virtual YouTuber A.I Kizuna. --Animalparty (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Article 2.

  • 1. This character is protected by copyright law and other applicable laws and regulations.
  • 2. This License does not preclude the use of this character by the user generally accepted under the Copyright Act or other applicable laws and regulations.

...

Article 3 License Agreement · Terms of Use

  • 1. In accordance with each provision of this license, the Company shall grant to the user non-exclusively the following acts by the user himself / herself:
    • (1) To create a secondary creation of this character.
    • (2) To duplicate, perform, screen, publicly transmit, exhibit or distribute secondary creations of this character created by the user himself / herself.
    • (3) By using the whole or a part or nickname of the name of this character in the title, description, etc. of the secondary creation of this character created by the user himself, or by using the name of this character in the secondary creation To assign unique name using department.
  • 2. In utilization under the preceding paragraph, the user shall comply with all the use conditions listed in the following items.
    • (1) Do not infringe any third party's intellectual property rights or any other rights and honor.
    • (2) Honor and grade of this character Do not do hurt actions.
    • (3) Do not use it because of acts and purposes contrary to public order and morals, violent expression, antisocial acts and purposes, specific beliefs and religions, political remarks.
    • (4) Do not use misleading usage as if it is an official product of this character.
    • (5) Do not use it for other acts that the Production Committee deems inappropriate.
    • (6) For commercial use, we shall obtain prior approval from this production committee.
  • 3. You may not re-grant to third parties the rights that this Production Committee has licensed under this License.
@Animalparty: Looks like this is a non-commercial license which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Kaldari (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, it is non-free. Some of the other restrictions are already very edgy at best, like precluding acts that the copyright owner deems inappropriate, but the non-commercial restriction is clear. The restrictions make perfect sense for allowing fan art while still retaining some control over the character, but they are non-free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. Listed for deletion here. Animalparty (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about NASA image marked as copyrighted

According to our own PD-USGov-NASA template, "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless otherwise noted". In the metadata of File:'A Beautiful Planet' World Premiere (NHQ201604160014).jpg there is a field named "copyright status" with a value of "copyrighted". Although I pointed this out during the deletion discussion, the image was kept. When I asked the closing admin why the copyright status in the metadata was ignored, I was not given a direct answer. I understand that NASA images are usually in the public domain, but this seems to be one of the "unless otherwise noted" exceptions. If this image is copyrighted and subject to NASA's re-use terms then how can it be accepted on Commons? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, NASA has no legal right to hold US Copyright. So suggesting that something is "Copyrighted by NASA" and subject to usage terms makes no sense. There are some files where the copyright is held by somebody else but NASA is publishing them (presumably under a license.) --ghouston (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
http://www.kowskyphotography.com/pages/bio
"all images © 2005-2017 Joel Kowsky or USGA or NASA don't steal images, it's bad karma"
The reason would seem to be: "I am currently a contract photo editor and photographer at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.". So dude no works for NASA.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/
"Some image and video materials on JPL public web sites are owned by organizations other than JPL or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption. Ownership of images and video by parties other than JPL and NASA is noted in the caption material with each image."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/26197229180/
"Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)"
Does this answer your question? W3ird N3rd (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Not specific to this case, but the US Government has the right to hold copyrights that have been transferred to it; it (or at least most parts of it) just doesn't have a copyright on anything it created.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
That could well be the case. I've looked at the photos from the nasahqphoto account (they only post ground photos on this account, no Mars pics) and counted the number of photos for which commercial re-use is allowed. Out of 14,643 photos this number appears to be exactly zero. To verify if this is correct, we should figure out if the other credited photographers (like Dimitri Gerondidakis, Kim Shiflett, Carla Thomas, Bill Ingallsm Victor Zelentsov, Aubrey Gemignani and Andrey Shelepin) are also just contracted and not NASA-employees. Where can we find this? W3ird N3rd (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have since discovered that the issue of NASA copyright was examined by the WMF's legal team about 5 years ago. This passage seems relevant to the case at hand:

While works produced by the U.S. government are not entitled to copyright protections, one U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that if the government contracts with a third party to create a work, and the work as commissioned is not related to official duties of any government employee, the work will enjoy copyright protection.[7] In these cases, the third party would hold the copyright, but the contract commissioning the work might transfer the copyright to the U.S. government. Because of this, it is possible for works created by or in conjunction with third parties to enjoy copyright protection, but whether the work does, and who holds the copyright, will depend on the specific circumstances of the work. NASA’s contract with the third party may even explicitly remove copyright protection, for example, so the particular circumstances of any given image will have to be investigated.[8]

In general, the opinion seems to be that NASA images need to be evaluated individually to establish whether ir not they are free to use. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I asked Joel Kowsky by e-mail. Here is his response:

The images are free to use as long as the use conforms with NASA's Image Usage Guidelines - https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html

My employment status as either a contractor or civil servant is irrelevant. I hold no copyright or rights on the images I produce for NASA. That some of the images my have the "copyright" field in the metadata filled as "copyrighted" is a symptom of some of the software that we use and is something that we make an effort to change every time, but some do slip through with that still selected.

I applaud the Wikipedia/media community's due diligence on copyright and usage.

Thanks, Joel

Which is very nice and clears up the the confusion about the copyright bit. W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that, W3ird N3rd. This clears up the question in this image, but do we need to look into other NASA images? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
What Joel says is suggesting that the contract that NASA has with photographers results in the photographer not holding copyright for NASA images. However, we now only know for sure this is the case for Joel Kowsky. There is a chance another photographer has a different contract or is hired on a different basis. So the dozen or so photographers that have made photos for the nasahqphoto account (and any other NASA accounts that say CC-NC on Flickr) should probably be contacted, that or NASA itself. W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Tfn-logo-lg.jpg

This file is licensed as "own work", but that seems unlikely. The file is being used on the official website of en:Transport for the North so it is an official logo. The question is whether this can be tread as {{PD-textlogo}} given COM:TOO#United Kingdom. The "N" in the word "North" is probably OK, but I'm not sure about the "arrow circle" to the left of the name. Can this be accepted as PD by Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The UK threshold is very low. If the EDGE logo was deemed eligible for UK copyright, I'd say this is more creative/complex. COM:TOO#United Kingdom does say "  Not OK for most logos." Others may interpret things differently, but I'd personally be wary. -- Begoon 12:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
In case you need it, here the arrow-circle-something has been cropped: File:Transport_for_the_North_logo_cropped.jpg W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Even the "N" in that (stylized as it is to represent 2 "arrows") might be enough if a judge applied the same super-strict logic as at "EDGE". Also, it's now not the logo, just part of it, and from COM:DERIV: "...all subsequent works based on another, previous work but lacking substantial new creative content are merely considered copies of that work and are entitled to no new copyright protection as a result (and should not be referred to as "derivative works", as this has a very specific meaning in copyright law). In either case, unless the underlying work is in the public domain (see Commons:Public domain) or there is evidence that the underlying work has been freely licensed for reuse (for example, under an appropriate Creative Commons license), the original creator of the work must explicitly authorize the copy/ derivative work before it can be uploaded to Commons." Of course, this all depends on whether the original does pass the threshold.-- Begoon 23:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I had seen another cropped/retouched image here that was marked as a derivative, so I thought that was right. This not being the case, I will nominate the cropped image for deletion. If the original image is allowed, there is no need for the cropped version. If the original is not allowed, apparently neither is the cropped variant. W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It would depend on the extent of the 'retouching' whether it added any new creative content. In this case there isn't any - just a crop. Regardless, if the original is not an acceptable free file then edits or copies of it, be they crops or 'creative' retouches, are similarly non-free without explicit consent of the original copyright holder, as I understand it. Also, removing part of an "official" logo could be seen as "tarnishing" the owner's image. -- Begoon 00:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
In this case it's probably not really tarnishing as it seems a very similar version already exists, except it has a green instead of blue N. An example can be found at [6]. So far I haven't been able to find out if this is an official version of the logo, but if File:Tfn-logo-lg.jpg is not acceptable that green version still might be. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Given that's a news release from 2015: "Chancellor George Osborne announced that Transport for the North will be established as a statutory body in his summer budget last week, creating a new regional transport superpower.", I'd hazard a guess it's an early version, superseded by the one currently in use on the website. A quick google image search didn't really find it anywhere useful that was not associated with that announcement. -- Begoon 02:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Releases from prison inmates?

Pardon the cross-post. Hoping there are more watchers on this page who can respond to this thread on the OTRS noticeboard (could be answered by non-OTRS volunteers familiar with license release processes): Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Releases_from_prison_inmates?Rhododendrites talk |  18:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

IANAL, but if the creators have given permission to the producers to use the images this way or have signed over their copyright to them, I think this won't be a problem. What this question makes me wonder about is: are prison inmates considered federal employees for copyright purposes? In some countries, laws get applied in funny ways once somebody gets put behind bars. Dunno if this could also apply to copyright. W3ird N3rd (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not certain, but I don't get the impression that there's been any formal process through which the copyrights were transferred to producers. I do know they were not paid for their work, and that it's not related to mandatory prison activities (i.e. hard to claim they were acting as employees). From what I've seen, prisoners do otherwise retain copyright for their creative works. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the issue is that communication with the inmates is complicated and they do not have e-mail. But they are able to get pictures out. So perhaps the creators could make a hand-written note saying "Image (image description) can be used with CC-BY license (signature)", take a photo from this note (or scan it) and publish that. By the way, I don't think it matters at all if they were paid for their work or not. Payment does not automatically transfer copyright. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding being paid, I understand; I was just mentioning that as an indication of someone acting as an employee, but that's a tangent anyway. I'm trying to make this process as easy as possible. So are you saying that you're sure that OTRS would find it okay to have an intermediary email in a photo of a written document that someone else wrote? Given the particulars of the text of the email, I wonder if the best way would be to put together the email text, then have them print it out and sign it, then take a picture of that (rather than have them write the document). But again, I want to be sure this would work for OTRS purposes. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. But if the actual creator (the person who drew the image or made the photo) would write something on paper and sign it and a photo/scan of that is delivered to Wikimedia I couldn't understand why that would not be sufficient. Unless you believe the producers would deliberately fake such a thing, but I do not believe that is the case here. Again though: I'm not staff, I don't know who you should ask about this. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Vatican Library manuscripts

Recently, LMQ2401 came across scans of Borgiani Tonchinesi, an unpublished manuscript held in the Vatican Library that contains writings by Philipphê Bỉnh (1759–1833). [7] These scans would unblock the Vietnamese Wikisource's work to digitize Vietnamese works from that time period (via the Proofread Page extension). The works themselves should be in the public domain under the 70 p.m.a. rule, but each page of the scan has a visible watermark added by the library. Would it be acceptable to upload these scans to Commons, given that the same watermark appears on existing uploads in Category:Letters by Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn? (Also, if there's a better way to obtain digitized copies of this work than to download one JPEG per page, we're all ears.) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No watermark can make a public domain material copyrighted again. Ruslik (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I took a look at the underpinning way the Vatican was doing this a year ago, it was very irritating. Unfortunately there's no obvious work around as there are no non-watermarked versions exposed to the public in some technical way. The banner at the bottom of the given example can be mass cropped off the uploads if the uploader doesn't want to do this pre-upload; though a macro in GIMP or a similar editor would do it. If you want to be nice to the Vatican archivist, you could write to them and ask, but I seriously doubt the Vatican legal/middle management would allow anything to be released for free. Yes, it's public domain, yes the watermark is nonsense as the Vatican library is subject to law like everyone else.
The jpeg collection could be stitched into a djvu file, however it is probably more useful just to upload them as they are and let people surf a category on Commons for the book. If later on this is thought desirable for Wikisource, the djvu can be transcoded from it. -- (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. I think a PDF or DjVu would be desirable, since it isn't possible to use a category of images for a single book in the Proofread Page extension, which is our primary motivation for getting this book into Commons. It'll be a fair amount of work to download the images from the library's website, though. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
i would recommend, upload first to internet archive https://archive.org/index.php, and then use https://tools.wmflabs.org/ia-upload/commons/fill?iaId=, for conversion. and it will put on book template with link to wikisource index page to create. (requires OAuth) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 09:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
If these are being published for the first time, wouldn't they fall under the 25-year publication right in the EU ? It might depend on how the Vatican came into ownership in the first place, if that transaction counted as publication then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I read that these were previously in the Library of Propaganda Fide and became part of the Vaticani estremo-orientali in 1902. They have been available for consultation in the library, not locked away in a chamber of secrets. Publication rights are not relevant and are not claimed. -- (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, sounds fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Iran

Hi,

Recently a user:4nn1l2 widely tag iranian photographys of statue for removing by Commons:Freedom_of_panorama laws, and most of them removed because uploader unaware of this tag and nomination in that time and there wasn't any cleare rules for support themself. But i see in Commons:Copyright rules only two main factor needed for upload in commons wikimedia, first free in origin country by Berne Convention that iran is not member and united states copyright laws that iran and us have not copyright relations. So upload the images by COM:FOP law in commons not contain iran. For example in this case that a member nominated a photo for removing by COM:FOP and image keept because of Iranian works don't get US copyright. please admins and other members clear the situation for future.--5.234.41.60 09:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The original works still need to be free under the copyright law of Iran (according to Commons rules), since there's no FoP exception. Unless there's a license from the sculptor, architect etc. --ghouston (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ghouston: sorry but we don't talk about copyright laws in iran, we talk about support copyright laws of iran by commons wikimedia, as i said us have not copyright relation with iran and iran not a member of Berne Convention, so freedom of panorama not contain irainan works(in this case photography of statue). and when you said The original works still need to be free under the copyright law of Iran (according to Commons rules) exactly what rules? please link to that rules. --5.234.41.60 09:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a Commons policy that works from outside the US should also be free in their country of origin. It's not related to the Berne Convention. See Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law. --ghouston (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
True but as i said, iran and us don't have copyright relation, and wikimedia servers are located in the U.S and under U.S laws.--5.234.41.60 10:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps Commons could legally ignore Iranian copyright, but it chooses not to. I believe it's to reduce legal risks for Commons users in Iran, both contributors and reusers. --ghouston (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Commons is under U.S laws, and as U.S don't support iranian works you can see this exapmle in wikiscource too, so common's legally can't support them.--5.234.41.60 10:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. --Mr.Polaz (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons is an international project. There are many users who live in Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and San Marino who publish their works for the first time on Commons. While these works do not get protection in foreign countries, they are indeed protected in their source country. Isn't it inappropriate to say that a given Iranian file is free to use for anybody except a national of Iran? This is discrimination based on nationality and should not be tolerated on Commons. Fortunately, Jimbo Wales maintains the same opinion [8], as well as the community at large [9] 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is the current Iranian copyright law: Persian, English.

Furthermore, I use the official gadget to nominate files for deletion, so the uploaders do get notified. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: So if i send this photos or new photographs to a American citizen to upload them with his country laws, there's no problem?--5.234.41.60 13:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
There are still problems. When you take a picture of a statue, you are creating a derivative work. While you can waive your own rights, you can not decide about the sculptor's rights. Since the sculpture has been erected in Iran, it is still protected by the Iranian copyright law. Fortunately, there is no easy way to circumvent the rules. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: What i should to do, for example see this case in english wikipedia.--5.234.41.60 14:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Commons does not allow fair use (Commons:Fair use), but Persian Wikipedia allows it. You can upload your files to Persian Wikipedia locally, but you should provide strong rationale for each use per fa:ویکی‌پدیا:محتوای غیرآزاد. I am personally against it, because I think that fair use (or fair dealing) belongs to common law jurisdictions, but the Iranian legal system is a combination of civil law and Islamic Sharia law. The cases in which the Iranian copyright law permits you to use a work without acquiring the permission of the copyright holder are strictly limited. Nevertheless, the Persian Wikipedia community has decided to allow fair use for all works, regardless of their country of origin. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
this is amusing - prophylactic URAA enforcement, beyond what is legal to what may be legal in a future peace and love scenario, out of an abundance of caution. the supreme leader salutes you, Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not inappropriate to say that a given file is free to use for everyone who has the legal right to use it. There are many works on Commons that aren't available to people of certain nations to legally use, and in some cases that includes works they might consider part of their national heritage. The rule on Commons is an attempt to make files generally usable under the rule of the shorter term, but does not go so far as to exclude any file that might be restricted from people of certain nations.
Works of Iran and those other nations have an additional catch; if the nation joins the WTO or Berne Convention, those works will fall into copyright in the US under the URAA and similarly in other nations. I don't know about San Marino, but the main thing holding Iran back is ongoing US-Iran tensions, which we may hope can be resolved to the extent that Iran joins in an international copyright treaty. Besides supporting the internal legal rights of such nations, not accepting such files means less cleanup upon such a potential (and hoped for) change. One might argue (though I've never seen it argued) that protecting works of all nations for life+50 (or comparable publishing term) is an international standard that countries don't have the right to reject.
On the other hand, such nations do reject their obligations to protect works of other nations, at the cost of having their own works lack protection in other nations. I don't know that Commons matters much in such international to-and-fro, but it is the right of foreign Wikimedia users to limit the usage of their works to the CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, etc. that Iran, et al., reject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Museum releasing rights to modern and contemporary art?

As per the discussion here, the administrators of the Museo d'Arte della città di Ravenna told the organizers of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 that it would release the rights of all artworks photographed there with a CC-BY-SA license. Can I get some clarification on if/how that is even possible? Do Italian museums acquire the copyright to works that they own, making it possible for them to release them? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

why are you revisiting drama from 2016? do you have an image you want to delete? do not see any reason to second guess an Italian institution Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
We second guess potentially illegal decisions by other museums, image archives, and even courts, why not this one?   — Jeff G. ツ 16:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: If there was "drama" or discussions over this in 2016, I am totally unaware of it, so I'm not revisiting anything. If you could provide a link that would be most helpful. If you are suggesting copyright restricted images should be kept just because they have been here for a year, well, no, that doesn't make any sense to me. If we can legally keep the images, great. I don't 'want' to delete anything. Someone else recently nominated some for deletion and I was puzzled by the rationale for keeping. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
yeah, commons never misses a chance to bite an institution and dictate terms, even if it takes 2 years. i guess i will reiterate advice for institutions to upload to flickr which is stable, and do not place any confidence in commons stability. if you want to delete things just go here Category:Photographs by Carol M. Highsmith needing review; do not need to do a contemporary art purge. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, place your confidence in Flickr, owned by Yahoo!, the company that killed Geocities. (Apparently Yahoo! has been bought by Verizon, who probably has even less motivation to try and extract money from Flickr instead of just shutting it down.) If an art museum wants to deal with the cultural institution that is Wikimedia, then they have to find terms that we can work with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Project much?   — Jeff G. ツ 20:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
wikimedia is an institution without a civilized culture, real cultural professions will not touch it; for example:"I mean, if anybody's curious why not one millisecond of my time, penny of my money, or penny's-worth of my labor goes to Wikipedia...... this is it, basically. Don't @ me I can fix it. That's BS. Its system militates against fixing itself."[10] -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Look up the context to that tweet; it is amazingly irrelevant to this discussion. Complaints about the English Wikipedia's notability rules aren't relevant here, and the bias towards well-documented figures is shared by many cultural institutions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
i did not project the professional disdain for english, or this place, which goes directly to the lie that Wikimedia is a cultural institution. "they have to find terms that we can work with" or find a friendly wikimedian to work with, if there are any. the institutions have more confidence in flickr, than this place. [11]; [12]; [13]; [14] i wonder why they do not upload here?? or is this price for the lack of civil collaboration relevant? "Its system militates against fixing itself" or rather it is the toxic non-leaders that militate against fixing their problems. but i see you are happy to explain away anything that critiques your power. isn't that amazing? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
First of all, to my knowledge, these images weren't produced by the institution. They provided no labour to creating them nor uploading them. Second, the rules that uploaded images must be copyright cleared long pre-date 2016. If someone made a mistake, that's unfortunate. It's especially unfortunate for the commons users who photographed and uploaded the images. But mistakes don't obliviate the law. Otherwise, I could "accidentally" grant you the right to produce and sell copies of all the DVD films I've ever purchased, and that wouldn't be piracy, right? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion now continues at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Afro_Basaldella. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Quickshot_Watara_Supervision_game_cartridge_super_block.png

I have just added this file. It's a game cartridge for this obscure handheld game console. It is actually a Crystball cartridge, but I looked up the label from the "Super block" cartridge on the internet and that's now pasted over the original label. I believe the (extremely ugly mind you) "Super Block" label is covered by PD-shape or PD-ineligible, but I'm asking here to verify if this is indeed the case. Also, if it is, how do I supply that information? The cartridge and the label have different licensing info. W3ird N3rd (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It can be {{PD-shape}} though it is rather complex. Ruslik (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
No, not PD-ineligible to me. I think the lightning bits alone (if that is what they are) would be enough for copyright. On the other hand, this could well fall under the "incidental" part of de minimis, in that the goal was to show the entire product, and the label happened to unavoidably be there. This is the same as the decision in the s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. case, where the court rules that a photograph of a bottle would not be derivative of the label on that bottle (even if the label was copyrightable), unless the photo was focusing on the label in particular. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly what I'm trying to do. I want to have a picture of a Supervision cartridge, to give an idea of what a Supervision cartridge looks like. I don't care about this particular label, but if I blur, blank or remove it the picture would no longer give you a good idea of what a Supervision cartridge looks like. I would be happy to create some fantasy label or replace the label with some free image, but I feel that would be misleading because such a cartridge never existed. So I have searched for the label that seemed least likely to be copyrightable. If some all-text label turns out to exist, I would be happy to replace it with that. It doesn't matter which label is on there, just that there is one. W3ird N3rd (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd, Clindberg: How would it look to you in the following scenarios?
  1. White label saying "Example cartridge label" or similar
  2. Label virtually ripped off, leaving some backing and glue
  3. As above, but cleaned down to gray plastic to represent the factory state just before the application of glue and label
  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Ruslik0, too.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: With "Example cartridge label" it will not be clear to people who don't understand English that we made a fake label. Ripping the label (virtual or for real) seems just silly. I suppose it's possible to think about a way to damage (wear and tear) the label. Or put some coins or stamps on top of the cartridge. Still a bit silly but better than ripping. Removing the label, be it virtual or for real, is a possible alternative but not one I would like. These cartridges always had a label, a cartridge without label does not properly represent a game cartridge.
The reason for the label to be in the picture is because a label (any label) is/was part of a game cartridge. This label (or any other label that could be chosen) is not included to make the picture prettier. It is also not included because nobody here is creative enough to create their own original label. It is there because any fantasy label we could produce would not be historically accurate. And economic damage to the copyright owner is zero. -addition-: I just had an idea, let me try something.. W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the idea I had: price tags. To be honest, I imagined it would look better than it does. At least it's a "natural" thing to occur on a cartridge, if the label must be obscured I would still prefer this over blanking or "example label". W3ird N3rd (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said above, I think what is there now qualifies as COM:DM. Not actual, legal de minimis, but the "incidental" part of the policy. The one example mentioned in Commons:De minimis#An example under Civil Law is more-or-less the same thing, which the U.S. also has (as stated in the Ets-Hokin ruling), which is a slightly different concept than actual de minimis but still results in the photo not being a derivative work. There was also a Florida case which more or less said the same thing, about a photo of a motorcycle with a prominent copyrighted graphic on it -- the end ruling avoided making a binding ruling on the derivative rights aspects there due to a contract, but basically indicated they would have also ruled the photo not being derivative. Something like a screenshot on a device would be different -- that is under control of the photographer generally, and did not just happen to be there. But to me that is a photo of the entire product, and not derivative of the (copyrightable) label, just like Ets-Hokin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

EU/French copyright on typographic publications

I want to upload one of the images of the French product. I could not find sources saying how long such typographic publications are copyrighted. In the UK, ones first published there are copyrighted for 25 years. I wonder whether and how French copyright law covers those typographic works. George Ho (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any other EU country has the typographic arrangement term in their law. Generally just the UK and some countries which inherit their law from the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Possibly covered by some combination of COM:DM, COM:TOO and COM:Trademarks. W3ird N3rd (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

president.az (new version)

Hi there! Dear Gents,

There is following information in the official web-cite of the President of Azerbaijan:

The are no restrictions on the full or partial use of textual, photographic, video and audio material featured on the official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan by the media outlets, internet resources and information carriers. This also applies to television channels, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, scientific publications and encyclopedias (including online encyclopedias).

Photographs are released under the conditions of the GFDL license which allows copying, distribution, reproduction and performance of a work, and creation of derivative works under the condition that the work is marked in a way stated by the Licensor and under the condition that the same license applies to all derivative works. Photographs are property of the Press Service of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Please mark the photographs used as "Archive of the Press Service of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan - www.president.az".

Does it mean that we can upload the photos from that website to Commons? If yes, which licsence can we use. Could it be the similar with kremlin.ru? {{President.az}} is it enough?

Best regards, --►Cekli829 20:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher and @Asclepias, please look... ►Cekli829 13:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a follow-up of Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/11#president.az. The first paragraph of the license is unchanged and is problematic because it restricts the use of photographs to specified types of user. The second paragraph refers to the GFDL licence, the text of which is here. Should the two paragraphs be construed as alternative licenses, so that the restrictions of the first paragraph do not modify the permissions granted by the second paragraph? However there is also a problem with the second paragraph because Commons:Licensing indicates that GFDL is not practical for photos. Any comments? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I could read that as a second license, as the two paragraphs have nothing to do with each other, I don't think. The GFDL has some restrictions, so it's obviously unrelated to the first license. While the GFDL is highly discouraged for photos, it is still allowed, and for works which appear on the Internet under that license it can be OK given the lack of alternatives. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
What do we need to do now for an eligible license? ►Cekli829 18:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
If Carl Lindberg's analysis is correct then you can use the {{GFDL}} license tag. I think you should use {{GFDL |migration=not-eligible}}, based on the criteria in Commons:GFDL 1.3 relicensing criteria. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher, @Asclepias, @Clindberg, I sent your an e-mail about the topic. Unfortunately, I could not get an answer... How should the permit document be in president.az? Would you please send me the appropriate text? Thank you for your attention! --►Cekli829 11:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If they are licensed GFDL, then the {{GFDL}} tag is all you need. If we want to create a wrapper tag, which also indicates the desired credit, that would be OK too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Clindberg. CC BY-NC-ND 2010-2018 Official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan or CC BY-NC 2010-2018 Official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Is it appropriate? --►Cekli829 06:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

They do not offer the CC-BY-NC-ND license (and we could not host it even if they did). The desired credit is Archive of the Press Service of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan - www.president.az. License is GFDL. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Clindberg! If it does, is it okay? --►Cekli829 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

New version

There is following information in the official web-cite of the President of Azerbaijan:

All materials on the website are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

@Clindberg, @Verbcatcher and @Asclepias, please look...! If it does, is it okay? --►Cekli829 08:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cekli829: That is progress, thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Jeff G., how to get a license template? Template:cc-by-4.0? --►Cekli829 06:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cekli829: Yes, we usually refer to templates like that with {{Cc-by-4.0}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: what is it? --►Cekli829 17:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cekli829: You seem to have fixed it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)