Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/03

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright

User:Sit and Pop

Can an admin place a temporary block this uploader? Possible copyvios are coming faster than anyone could put them up for deletion. Even with batch delete my index finger would suffer repetitive strain injury just from clicking the mouse so many times. --P.g.champion (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and locked. ~riley (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

FoP-Albania

Hi, I created {{FoP-Albania}}. Please review, and eventually correct. We need the Albanian version. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Yann. I have slightly edited it and requested more translations here. Please go ahead and create a French text. De728631 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Image of Aunt Em possibly from the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz or a trailer

If the image File:Images ....jpeg is from the actual film, it would appear that there is likely a copyright issue. My understanding (as of this writing) is that the film will pass out of copyright in the US in the year 2035 (1939 + 95 + 1 = 2035.) Another possibility, from what others have said, is that there is a trailer for the film The Wizard of Oz and the trailer is out of copyright in the US because it was effectively published before the film was released and it was published in noncompliance with US copyright formalities. (With regard to the concept of "publication" under US copyright law being applied to movies, the information on movies in the English Wikipedia public domain content guidelines may be of interest.) As such, if the image is from the trailer, then it might be alright with regard to copyright. In any case, the CC BY-SA 3.0 license for the image seems very questionable. --Gazebo (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. The given license is bogus; it's likely a copyvio. Just looked at a couple trailers online and did not see this scene. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Gazebo and Clindberg: I tagged it as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Drone panguan mapping.jpg

Can someone please license review or mark this image? I cannot review this image as I don't know which version of CC BY SA it is licensed in. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The file source was a file in openstreetmap wiki, now deleted and repleced with a reference to Commons. So at the moment the file is selfsourced. Any information about the original license can be found only in the deleted file description in wiki.openstreetmap.org (dated 19 Jun 2017, and deleted 23 Oct 2017). The CC-like user template was added by Commons user Shadow1 who may be (but may be not) openstreetmap wiki user Shadow1, the initial uploader of this file. I think that we cannot assume any CC license here, unless declared by Shadow1@openstreetmap and we cannot review the Attribution license initially declared without assistance of an openstreetmap wiki admin. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

File:2017 Ikenobou Autumn Tanabata Exhibition Souka Hyakki (9).jpg

Would a photo of an en:Ikebana work be treated the same as any other photo of a 3D work of art in that there are two copyrights which need to be considered? Assuming that the uploaded and the photographer are the same, the license currently being used takes care of the photo. What about that actual Ikebana display/piece itself? There’s no FOP for 3D works of art in Japan per COM:FOP#Japan, but this seems to have been a temporary display in a department store. Is the permission of the Ikebana artist who created this needed for Commons to keep this? — Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, the permission of the Ikebana artist who created this is needed for Commons to keep this.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Jeff G.. There are a number of similar files(for example, File:2017 Ikenobou Autumn Tanabata Exhibition Souka Hyakki (7).jpg and File:2017 Ikenobou Autumn Tanabata Exhibition Souka Hyakki (3).jpg to just name two) uploaded by the same editor as well as some files, such as File:2017 Ikenobou Autumn Tanabata Exhibition Souka Hyakki (10).jpg, which are listed as "Other versions" of photographs. Then, there are older versions such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:General Atomics

Think two or more heads are better than one here. This user may be better off establishing a Commons:Role account if he is a representative of General Atomics. If not, his user name may fall foul of Commons:Username policy. The WP article General Atomics has been tagged as being written like an advertisement (which suggests some commercial involvement with editing) but our concern is with the images: File:Reactor - Isometric Cut-Away View.jpg, File:EM2-cross-section.jpg and File:EM2-plant cross section.jpg to which s/he, or they, claim as being 'own work' even though they appear on the companies' web site. I consider these images to be useful educationally and thus want to allow the up-loader time, to declare his actual status. What is the best way forward? --P.g.champion (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  Done Files tagged with "no permission", user warned that a confirmation is required. P.g.champion: You need to inform a user if you open a thread concerning them here. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Photo from a digitised newspaper

In order to illustrate an article on English Wikipedia, will it be OK copyright-wise to upload the photograph out of this digitised newspaper? 'A Returned Reformer.', Weekly Herald (Adelaide, SA : 1894 - 1898), 26 February, p. 1. , viewed 04 Mar 2018 It is from the Adelaide Herald of 26 February 1898, and is made available by the National Library of Australia's "Trove" service. Noyster (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Noyster: Here, perhaps 1 January 2019 unless you can identify the photographer and year of death (given the penchant here and at the USCO for waiting til 1 January after 120 years). On English Wikipedia, probably per w:FAIRUSE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that is OK. Older Australian photographs had a term based on date of creation, not the life of the author, and the U.S. uses date of publication. It would be {{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-1923}} (both tags should be added). Other countries do use the life of the photographer, so it can happen that photos even that old are still under copyright, so you do need to be careful. Commons cares about the country of origin (where it was first published) plus the U.S., so both tags are needed. There would be countries where the photo is likely still under copyright, but per policy Commons needs those two in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Luis Alejandro Ratti.png

Image appears to be a copyright violation of a photograph by Caraota Digital[1].--Jamez42 (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  Deleted Next time, you can simply add a {{Copyvio}} tag. Do not forget to inform the uploader. Account is also blocked (third time, so indef.). Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

How is File:Internshala logo.png not a copyright violation?

According to the company website, the logo cannot be used without permission and yet the image was uploaded here under a CC license. The logo has existed on the website since before the image was uploaded here.

Am I missing something? Smtchahal (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smtchahal: I tagged it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Is the image below India's threshold of originality? I would doubt that the shape(s) forming a paper airplane would be original enough per India's POV, but that's my opinion. George Ho (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@George Ho: I see you removed the copyvio tag; were you going to convert it to a DR? Anyway, ISTM from the paper linked from there that India’s ToO is similar to Canada’s, the test being based on “skill and judgment“. So my two cents’ worth is that the logo is copyrightable in India, if not in the USA (in which case it would be OK on enWP with an appropriate tag).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Internshala logo.png. George Ho (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 13:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Submit own uploads for deletion due to copyright violation

I mistakenly uploaded files which I am now aware may be subject to copyright. The files are: File:Trailing stop example.png, File:Stop gain example.png, File:Stop loss example.png, File:Limit order example.png. They are screenshots of proprietary software, which I only recently learned, are non-free. I do not know what the process is to require immediate removal, so I'm asking for help here. I have already taken care of removing them from the wikis they are used in. Thanks and sorry. I haven't uploaded any other screenshots nor similar works. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You can use {{Speedydelete}}, Saturnalia0, and type your reasons for deletion. George Ho (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  Done Files deleted. Yann (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 13:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Papa Juhani Mikstuur.jpg

Is there a way to ask the company for their approval (or disapproval) to continue using File:Papa Juhani Mikstuur.jpg? I tried contacting them on Facebook's Messenger, but the communication between us went nowhere, even when one or more of them speak English. I told them the conditions before allowing it and gave them a link to COM:PACKAGING and asking them to email to us. However, maybe they either don't seem to spend their time making efforts or don't seem interested in this project. Even I thought the company decided on one thing, but that turns out to be a misunderstanding, or maybe they assumed I was talking about letting them use the photo. There is an email address, but the way the communication between both me and the company went makes my chances to email them less likely. I don't want the image to be deleted yet, but I wonder whether a company's approval/authorization is needed to keep the image. George Ho (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC); Source: Flickr. George Ho (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: Misunderstanding between me and the company has (somewhat) dissipated. The company "approves", but is hesitant to email to them. If they can't use the OTRS service, then how else do I prove that they approve? George Ho (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not up to us to prove that they approve – it is for them. So, if they can't be bothered to submit an OTRS then delete. Also, up-loader is claiming authorship to a lot of images he is not the author of. This field should not be used to specify the name of the person who is the scanner, finder, or uploader of the image; these things do not make them the author. See: Category:Photographs by Steve Jurvetson. This error needs to be brought to his attention. --P.g.champion (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I emailed Mr Jurvetson already. He made one or two replies about it but that's it. That was before I contacted the company about it. I'll try to persuade them once more. George Ho (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like you have fallen onto (or discovered) the horns of a three horned problem. You, the company and the up-loader, with the latter two not being co-optative as to true authorship. There is no point in renaming Category:Photographs by Steve Jurvetson to Category:Photographs uploaded to Flickr by Steve Jurvetson then uploaded by a bot to WC. We might as well delete that cat totally. Also there is the issue of user names. Is this 'Steve' the same contributor as in Category:Steve Jurvetson ? For instance: File:Steve Jurvetson 2014.jpg shows the copyright holder in the EXIF belonging to Asa Mathatn not Steve Jurvetson. Think an experienced admin should view this unholy mess. --P.g.champion (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh... I should have said earlier that, in email, he said that most of the photos featuring him, like File:Ayaan Hirsi Ali 2006.jpg, were taken by his (then-?)wife. Moreover, he said that he was gonna change the global licensing settings back from "All rights reserved" to "Creative Commons-Attribution". George Ho (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Just because this was taken by his then wife doesn't mean he comes to own all the "marital property". So it up to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to re-license. As both a Pro photographer that has also gone through a divorce he should know this. Anyway. File:Ayaan Hirsi Ali 2006.jpg doesn't appear to be 'own work' either ! I am in half-a-mind to suggest that all of his (?) images be deleted and leave him with a tabula rasa (clean sheet) for him to upload only the few that he maybe able to do legitimately. Otherwise we will be discussing the mess he has given us for ever. --P.g.champion (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: "So it up to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to re-license." This makes no sense. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is (afaik?) not his wife and didn't take the picture either. - Alexis Jazz 23:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure where this discussion is headed. For the U.S., I'm not sure that is a derivative work of the label on the bottle. A little gray, but it is taking a photo of the entire bottle -- I guess the question is if it is focusing on the label or not. If not (and given the glass in the background, the focus is wider to me), then it's not a derivative work, and we only need permission for the photo, which we have. Even though the license has changed since on Flickr. It would not be a COM:PACKAGING issue. If the photo was not taken by Mr. Jurvetson, there could well be an issue, but he has been a pretty prolific photographer on Flickr and that would be surprising. If there were photos taken by his wife... I probably would not care. That probably falls under "duly authorized agents" in copyright law where he could license them validly, even if not strictly the copyright owner. It's not worth it to worry about unless the other party complains, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The up-loader didn't even know how to describe the photo. Let someone else from Europe correct me. The label just says it is a ½ liter bottle. There is no alcohol content on the label (as is legally required in Europe) because it is just a dry bottle of herbs. One has to add the sprit oneself and leave to infuse for a couple of days before drinking. Yet he categorized as a liqueur. If the up-loader really took the photograph, surly he would know how to categorize it correctly. Or maybe he is a full-time-member of the Jet Set and spends all his time traveling the world taking photos, with ear plugs and blinkers. His web Bio's doesn't support these eclectic photographic skills. Let us stop wasting time on this this slippery fish and delete – so that he can start afresh. --P.g.champion (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Fine, so fix the description and the categories. There is no licensing issue that I see, and no reason to delete. The dude has been putting impressive photographs up on Flickr for *years*. I remember looking years and years ago and there were consistent cameras used, etc. And yes, he pretty much is a jet-set guy, and has been for a while. w:Steve Jurvetson. It would be beyond ridiculous to delete all of his photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't see why the uploader matters. The author is a separate Flickr author where I would be beyond stunned if there was a significant issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • IMO, this is serious COM:PACKAGING issue (and only this issue) as the label is about 25% of the photo. The arguments that the photo is not focused on the label here are not serious, IMO. If the label is removed/blurred/replaced wth sth else, the photo will likely be out of scope. So I suggest delete basing on COM:PACKAGING as the label copyright owner does not intend to send us permission for this. Ankry (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The Ets-Hokin v Skyy decision:
We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole--a useful article not subject to copyright protection--and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works.
The focus is the bottle as a whole here to me, even including a resulting drink as a major part of the shot. I'm not sure the photo trades off of any particular expression in the label. The label is likely incidental here -- i.e. he wasn't taking the photo because of any particular expression on the label, but he was taking a photo of the entire bottle, and the label was there whatever it was (copyrightable or not). There was a somewhat similar French court case on a building, which was prominent and in the center, but the photo was of the entire street (with the building at the end) and the photo was ruled to be not derivative. It does not necessarily have anything at all to do with percentages, but rather what the subject is, and how much control the photographer had over the inclusion over any expression which materially enhances the photo. If they were taking a photo of the bottle, the label is going to unavoidably be there. On the other hand, there was a case about a fashion photo, where the photographer had the model wear a pear of fancy glasses, even though the focus was on the dress and the glasses were a very small percentage of the photo. The glasses turned out to be copyrighted, and since that was expression intentionally (and avoidably) added to the photo which obviously enhanced the photograph in the photographer's mind, it was ruled derivative and the photographer lost the case. If you took a photo of someone on the street who happened to be wearing those glasses, probably not derivative (photographer had no control over whether the glasses were there -- he would have been taking a photo of a person as a whole). The only argument here is if the photo is mainly there to show the label. That may be slightly arguable, but I think it is OK. Courts do have to find a balance between photographers being able express themselves versus copyright owners being able to prevent it, and this "incidental" line seems to be one of those. A logo designer does not get derivative rights over every work where the logo happens to appear, etc. We should protect copyright, to be sure, but we should protect the public domain with equal force. I don't think we should go deleting types of works where we cannot demonstrate a real-life problem. If we can find a court case where this type of work was ruled derivative, then that could change things, but to the best of my knowledge the only cases along these lines have been ruled the other way. The Ets-Hokin decision seems to be directly applicable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • He is claiming authorship to all the photographs of which he is the subject and all the photographs that he uploaded to flickr, even when some exif's show otherwise. Quantity hasn't equated to reliability. --P.g.champion (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sure there are a few uploaded photos which are issues -- we have hundreds if not more. He probably had a default CC license on his Flickr account and there were a few uploads which are possible issues, among his many thousands. If there was a pro photographer in the EXIF, sure nominate that one. Just looking, there is an aerial photo of China which he describes as a scan of a postcard -- that should go, as the uploader should never have grabbed that. Most of his stuff looks fine. But if his wife took the photos with his camera, those are probably perfectly legal. U.S. law allows a "duly authorized agent" to license works, sign transfers, and even file copyright registrations in their name, even if they are not the author. I would not want to stretch that much, as there is no real way to know for sure what a "duly authorized agent" is, but I'm willing to accept that for spouses (unless the other spouse complains). It's also arguable he is a co-author, if he had input on the expression in the photo. It's likely perfectly legal and valid in real life, and overly officious to delete on those grounds usually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  Keep the deletionist has not earned our trust. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
? @ Slowking4. The OP appears to be bending-over-back-wards to find a way of keeping this image. The very opposite to being (as you wrongfully suggest) a deletionist. He has even gone to the trouble of e-mailing them ! --P.g.champion (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Take that back!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
don't know why you are wasting time bloviating on VP. 45 deletions and 157 uploads seems clear to me.[2] yeah, imagine emailing macarthur foundation to "clarify" their licensing terms, and then selectively quoting from an OTRS. i see we have a practice that PRP > AGF. i say no AGF = no AGF. but, let the mass deletions begin. vote there. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that was uncalled for, but the "trust" accusation against Mr. Jurvetson is nearly as bad. This particular photo has other possible issues, which are separately arguable, though I believe the Ets-Hokin decision is directly on point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The original query has lead us to the question if the bulk of his uploads comply with WC policy. Several of us have been investigating this and we don't think so.--P.g.champion (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking further into the provenance of this photo, I found that the Flickr uploader has changed the license; thus, I tagged it {{Flickr-change-of-license}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the Flickr user looks like he has changed the license on all his photos now, so they could all use that tag. We have many uploads going back many many years with that Flickr user; I know I have looked in the past, and they were generally fine. For example, File:Barack Obama Inauguration.jpg from 9 years ago. He had several shots with that same camera, uploaded to Flickr (then Commons) the day that were taken. Also, remember that he uploads to Flickr, and other users here grab them and upload here -- he is not the direct uploader. A couple uploads of him taken by his wife should not cause "trust" issues. Talk of deleting all his uploads because there are a couple of edge case ones among many hundreds of uploads is a bit reckless, in my opinion. Focus on the individual problems. If there are rampant photos taken from other sources, then it becomes a problem, but the vast bulk of his Flickr account looks (or looked in the past) as though they were his photos. I just nominated one, but he clearly marked it as a scanned postcard on Flickr, so it should never have been uploaded here. You would only have significant "trust" issues if they were taking photos from elsewhere and claiming them as his own. Even the photos of himself by pro photographers, he could very well have the rights -- would depend on the contract between him and the photographer. He just uploaded them to Flickr. We may prefer OTRS here, but that is not an overall "trust" issue -- it is pretty clearly labeled as to what it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
As said before, via email, Jurvetson is gonna change the global licensing setting on his images back to one of CC licenses. I'm unsure whether tagging all of them as "flickr-change-of-license" is necessary, but I won't undo the tagging yet. George Ho (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK, missed that thanks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Were you referring to me, Slowking4? If so, that would be incorrect labelling. Indeed, I've done my efforts to receive authorization from the label company, and I'm working hard on them. George Ho (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
No, I think he was referring to P.g.champion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
i salute your superior diplomatic skills. we have here an editor who chastises you for writing an email to keep a file, when people email to delete files all the time; and no one chastises them. i guess some editors are here for the deletions, and not the collaboration; and then take offense at the label deletionist. carry on; so it goes. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Slowking4 Out of the posts above it looks like only I and George Ho posting here, take the effort to email for clarity of permissions to avoid some valued images being deleted by other editors. Who are these chastisers that your speak of ? Which editors are they chastising? Smell a red herring. Let us keep to the issue. --P.g.champion (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Update: I made attempts to send message at the Messenger, but I've been told often, "This person isn't available right now." I tried email, but I've not yet received a response. George Ho (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Um... I'm unsure how de minimis applies. There is some emphasis on the label, even with a martini glass near it. Moreover, a few others voted "delete", and there is originality on the label. By the way, the Ets-Hokin decision is based on (un)originality of the Skyy bottle label and separate copyright of the photo. I'll let uninvolved admin decide. George Ho (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC); edited, 19:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC); self-corrected per below, 01:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
No, the Ets-Hokin decision is not based on the unoriginality of the label. They mention that, but then in the paragraph I quoted above, state that the copyrightability of the label is irrelevant ("We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable"). It is a matter of what the photo is focusing on. If it was the entire bottle, and not the label in particular, then the photo would not be derivative. This is not true de minimis, but rather incidental -- if you were taking a photo of the bottle, you are going to include the label whatever it is, regardless of its expression. The label was inherently there, copyrightable or not. There was a similar ruling on a photo of a motorcycle with a complex copyrightable graphic on it -- the graphic was inherently there, but did not make the photo derivative. If you think the photo was taken primarily of the label, and there is an emphasis on it such that the expression in the label adds to the photograph (i.e. if the photographer wouldn't have bothered without that label in particular), it could be different. It is on the theoretical edge though. I can see some arguments that way, but to me it's not enough to rise to a significant doubt. Photos being derivative works of photographed objects are on the fringe of copyright to begin with, though they do happen. However, just about every case I can think of, it was either the unambiguously primary subject, or it was expression that a photographer specifically added (and had control over) to enhance the photo of another object. I prefer to only delete works where we can point to an actual decision which shows the issue. In this case, we only have decisions which say such photos are fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
(Re-)Reading the 2000 decision (and 2003 addendum), I shall say that, although this discussion may not be about the Skyy bottle (but about Papa Juhani Mikstuur), the case, which focused primarily on the idea of photographing the Skyy bottle, is intriguing to read and research over and over. That said, IMHO the Ets-Hokin v Skyy case is too subjective to use as a precedent for other images of bottled products, whose category can be discussed at another time. Also, the Skyy bottle is a mere useful article; so is the Estonian bottle, but it has a very creative label. Moreover, displaying the label in the photo was intentional, neither "incidental" nor "de minimis". "Incidental" (another def.) would imply or mean coincidental or "loosely associated" or minor. The Flickr page primarily describes the product, even when brief, implying the intent to show the product label. Furthermore, there may be precautionary principle, i.e. "significant doubt" on freedom of the image; the label contains a gnome sleeping on a mushroom stem. True, this photo shows the whole vodka bottle with herbal leaves inside. However, while the photos of uncopyrightable bottles are not derivatives, I can say that the photo of a bottled label product beside a martini glass is a derivative work of a copyrighted label. Take/Mute the label out, and you get just a bottle with leaves inside beside a martini glass, which could be considered out of the project scope. George Ho (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not about taking the label out -- the question is would the photo have been taken if there was a label with a different expression there, I think. It is not the fact that expression appears in the photo, it is if the photo can be "based on" that expression. In the Ets Hokin ruling, the focus was the entire bottle, therefore the photo was based on the bottle. It would have to be of (or mainly of) the label to be "based on" the expression in the label. Once it is based on the bottle, a wider subject, it is no longer "based on" the label (copyright-wise) and is no longer a derivative work. They did not use the word "incidental" there -- that came from Latimer vs Roaring Toyz. Further weakening defendant-appellees argument is the fact that the ZX-14 motorcycles were the subject matter and primary focus of Latimer’s photographs. Latimer’s photographs can best be described as being “based upon” the ZX-14 motorcycles, useful articles not subject to copyright protection. The fact that Hathaway’s artwork appears in the photographs is merely incidental. (That case went on to rule that the contract allowed the photo anyways, so did not have a binding ruling on the derivative aspect, but was pretty clear where they were headed, while at the same time overturning a lower court ruling that a photo could barely ever be a derivative work which was going too far.) So, the photograph of a wider subject of the motorcycle was not derivative of the graphics on the motorcycle, even though they were there and prominent. This is the same principle in a French court case whereby we keep such photos as File:Louvre at dusk.JPG and File:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg -- the pyramid is prominent and in the center, however the photo is of a wider subject and therefore not "based on" the pyramid directly, and therefore OK. The French case was about a photo of the street with La Tour Montparnasse at the end, I believe -- while the building was centered and prominent in the photo, the photo was of a wider subject (and the building was just an "accessory" to that wider subject). I think they called it the "theory of the accessory" or something like that. Whether we use that term or "incidental" for this type of thing, there seems to be a common thread in some court decisions, where photos of wider subject can contain copyrightable works. There can be gray areas as always, but again to me COM:PRP is about significant doubt, not theoretical doubt. Giving the artist of a product label derivative rights over every photo where that label appears is going too far when balancing the rights of the photographers, quite often. Photos where the copyrightable object is the main subject seems to be the difference. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

633 images from dati.camera.it

Recently Ruthven added 633 images to the license review list from http://dati.camera.it/it/. For simplicity's sake lets take one file as an example. I'll be using File:Daniela Sbrollini daticamera.jpg throughout but the other 632 are the same.

Falling down the rabbit hole I get to here: http://dati.camera.it/it/download/deputati.html. That page is the download page for some .RDF files and has both a CC-BY 3.0 and an Open Data license at the bottom. So far so good. For those wanting to view it yourself you would click on the bottom "Deputati" link. .RDF files can be opened in notepad or another text viewer. The .RDF file contains thousands of lines of code and information on each legislator in the Italian Congress along with a link to the combined info. Finding Daniela Sbrollini's page leads you to http://dati.camera.it/ocd/deputato.rdf/d302833_16.

That page has a different photo, probably a more recent version, and no copyright information whatsoever on it. The photo we have uploaded is unavailable through this method (no archive) and the only place I could find it was here which has an all rights reserved license. Assuming that the photo we have was originally on the dati site, which is a big assumption, what about the license? I can't tell if the data is under a CC/Open Data license. That is the text contained within the .RDF file. Or if everything linked within that file is also under that license. It is unclear. This affects an enormous amount of files and I would really appreciate any additional thoughts on this. --Majora (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added the {{LicenseReview}} of course because these files weren't reviewed so far, and the sooner, the better, as Majora's indications seem to suggest. The website dati.camera.it is published with CC-BY, thus all resources coming from there are uploadable on Commons. Moreover, in Italy a recent law approved the "open by default" for institutional websites (see [3] p.84); Holapaco77 is preapering a template (still in sandbox User:Holapaco77/Template:Italy-CAD-OBD) for the cases where no copyright indication appears. In any case, in the link provided, I see at the top "dati.camera.it", in yellow, to indicate that the website www.carmera.it falls under the wing of dati.camera.it, but the legal information at www.camera.it states "all rights reserved": there is come contraddiction here. The files were uploaded by @Sannita: who, at the time, was part of the board of WMI (thus a trusted user); maybe he can add some comments on how he got the photographs from dati.camera.it. --Ruthven (msg) 07:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be a recurrent problem... anyway, the images we uploaded were taken from dati.camera.it, the license was and it's still CC BY 3.0, AFAIK. So if I understood correctly, it's just a problem of source: Daniela Sbrollini's image (the example made by Majora) is available here, from her dati.camera.it page (the link is under foaf:description). At the time, BTW, the images were included in the RDF dump, I really don't know why they removed them. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, Sannita. This is going to be a mess. Why would there be two different listings for the same person with different images on them? Going through that .RDF file is going to be fun but I'll chip away at it little by little. However, I still have a minor concern that I'm hoping you might be able to clear up. I only read a little Italian so I'm probably missing it but can you point out where it says that everything linked to from that .RDF file is also under Creative Commons? I understand the text within the .RDF file is. This would include data such as gender, name, party affiliation, etc. But since .RDF files are just text the image itself would not be included in the file and would only show on the link. Does it say anywhere on that site that everything linked to from the .RDF is also under CC-BY 3.0? --Majora (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I do share your "happiness" about doing lots of useless work, I just don't know why they love to make reuse more and more complicated without any concrete reason... We were even "forced" to have several identifiers on Wikidata for Italian MPs to deal with that.
Anyway, everything listed in the RDF file or on the dati.camera.it is released under CC BY, so is to be considered CC BY. I talked personally with people related to the portal in 2014, and they reassured me about that. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 09:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll start working on the images in question. Sannita, while I believe you that you talked to them and they confirmed it, it would be nice to have an actual link stating the same. Else we could be forced to go down this road again sometime in the future. Nobody wants that. I've been looking more at the site and I think http://dati.camera.it/it/linked-data/ is enough proof for our purposes. A native Italian speaker's confirmation would be appreciated though. Ruthven, your thoughts on that would be welcomed as well. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: At the link it's clear that material from dati.camera.it is under CC by 3.0 ("licenza Creative Commons - Attribuzione - Condividi allo stesso modo"). Doing a SPARQL research on dati.camera.it [4] I got the list of pages for each politician, with the original photos. I'll try to replace them as "source" on Commons, but it can take a couple of days. --Ruthven (msg) 08:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. I've already started going through the images. Thank you for the link to the correct URLs. --Majora (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg blocking access from germany due to court order

This hasn't been mentioned here, but seems quite relevant to us. After the US-based Project Gutenberg was sued in Germany over providing access to works that are still copyrighted in Germany and then lost, they have resorted to blocking access to their archive for those based in Germany. Their statement is an interesting read for anyone concerned about inter-country legalese around copyright :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheDJ: This is a worrying development. I don't suppose the EFF or WMDE have commented on it yet.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Ironic, considering Johannes Gutenberg was himself German and is credited with played a key role in the spreading of learning to the masses. --P.g.champion (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It's worrying, but it also shows that our Commons policy (content must be free in the US and in the country of origin) is a wise proactive measure, so something like this is less likely to happen in this project. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
a rather draconian response based on 3 authors: Heinrich Mann (died 1950), Thomas Mann (d 1955) and Alfred Döblin (d 1957).[5] (rather like the SOPA blackout, or telling the National Portrait Gallery to get stuffed) the courts are vying to extend their reach; see also w:United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2018). precautionary will not shield you from the personality rights enforcement and w:General Data Protection Regulation. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing draconian about wanting to isolate yourself from further lawsuits. They recognise they have a lot more content in their system that could be claimed by other publishers, and no way of telling one from the other on that front from their own point of view. As such a full block is easier (at the very least short term, what they do long term is something they i don't think they have decided yet). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
a less pugnacious response would be lock the three authors' works, as not safe for germany. the life+70 authors are few and an edge case. the full block is vindictive, but par for the course for the free fanatic crowd. not very attractive, and will not endear you to european judges. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

제 1유형: 출처 표시

Can someone with knowledge of the Korean language check the compatibility of the license 제 1유형: 출처 표시. For example 대북 특사단 활동 사진. We have one photo from there: File:Chung Eui-yong and Kim Jong-un.jpg. If everything is good we need to upload all photos from this article because we don't have free photos of Kim Jong-un: Category:Kim Jong-un. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: how a license from the Republic of Korea may be applicable to media copyrighted by DPRK? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
KOGL’s license is under dispute. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:KOGL. — regards, Revi 12:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

yue:File:Note.jpg

Hello Commoners. Editors on the Cantonese Wikipedia are discussing whether to delete or keep this image. Specifically, does the fact that this image includes the content of a screen constitute a significant derivative work? Or is it acceptable by de minimis? If not, is this acceptable as fair use to show the home screen of Note 1 and Note 2 as configured to zh-cn / yue-hans in a Wikipedia article? Deryck Chan (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that fair use is ok for this image. Ruslik (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Images from Commons:Nationaal Archief

In 2010, the Dutch National Archive donated some 1000 photos under a CC-by-sa-3.0 licence. As it turned out, some (if not all of them) are now available in a higher resolution under a CC-0 licence. E.g. File:Grand Gala du Disque Populaire 1970 - Liesbeth List & Willem Duys.jpg (2010) vs File:Grand Gala du Disque in RAI Amsterdam. Liesbeth List tijdens optreden, Bestanddeelnr 923-3041.jpg (2018). Normally we wouldn't keep such duplicates and delete the smaller version, but because of the different licences, I'm wondering what to do here. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A reasonable interpretation of the law would be that the NA have waived the attribution right by releasing the later scan as CC0. There is no additional value in keeping the lower resolution version, so overwriting and updating the license and any other metadata seems non-controversial. There would be a better case to keep alternates if they were different prints or negatives being used to create the end image. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: My thoughts exactly. We should just replace and delete the older low-resolution images and then ridirect the file names for reference. However, Category:Images from Nationaal Archief has almost 270k images, so picking out the duplicates requires some automated means. Could that be a job for Fæbot? We could have a subcategory to collect all the duplicates as a first step. De728631 (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I could do it, naturally, but it may take me some weeks to look at it. I would overwrite in preference to redirecting for images yet to be uploaded. The technical way to examine duplicates will depend on the exact use cases. In the first instance I would expect unique IDs + SHA values to do all the work, and then only look at other means if needed.
If you want to put this on me to analyse, you'd better put a reminder on my talk page, though raising on bots/work requests might wake up another volunteer with these skills. --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Attention appreciated. But automated replacements might cause some trouble. Look at these two photographs:

  •  
    Jack Sels, original, 1.3 MB
    Uploaded in 2018
  •  
    Jack Sels, slightly cropped, 1.26 MB
    Uploaded in 2016

Several people have been transferring ca. 17,000 photographs from this collection into Commons over the last 5 years -sometimes correcting the metadata, sometimes cropping etc. (See this article about Anefo & Wikipedia.) User:Mr.Nostalgic is now transferring ca.300k photographs from the Dutch National Archives to Commons~, including the Anefo collection. A bot removing so called duplicates would also remove improved metadata and photographs. A solution could be to have the duplicaties in a list for some weeks, enabling a closer look by some of the Wikimedians involved. Vysotsky (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I never suggested a bot removing the duplicates. Instead I meant a bot assigning a maintenance category to them so the images can be checked individually until a better solution has been found. This is pretty much the same as the list you mentioned. De728631 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Good plan. Vysotsky (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanx everybody for the heads up. I'm realising that a side effect of the positive, massive upload from User:Mr.Nostalgic his script can be the loss of metadata and/or editing. --Timmietovenaar (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it will work out well. User:Mr.Nostalgic has been working very carefully. If an exact copy was present, he didn't upload a new version, and he didn't overwrite or delete photographs that on first sight might have looked like duplicates. No metadata was removed. But yes, there is a lot of work ahead: categorizing, completing and correcting metadata. Vysotsky (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

US copyright of File:Van Gogh - Bildnis eines jungen Mannes mit Kornblume.jpeg

The US copyright of Vincent van Gogh's Bildnis eines jungen Mannes mit Kornblume (Young Man with a Cornflower) seems unclear to me. Internationally, the portrait is out of copyright for years since van Gogh's lifetime (i.e. death in 1890). However, I found a US copyright registration (K34474) from 1937 catalog, registered by supposedly Franz Hanfstaengl, who died in the late 19th century. Maybe the Estate or a company named after him must have done that, or maybe someone else with the same name. Then the US copyright renewal was registered in 1964 (R349036). Moreover, the portrait came from a "private collection". Furthermore, I re-read the chart of US copyright and have figured that "Works Registered" does not mean "First Published in the U.S." Even when free internationally, can the copyright registration (and its renewal) of the portrait be still valid in the US? George Ho (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I found the webpage about The Franz Hanfstaengl Publish Company. I guess that's what the registration meant. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If the painting managed to remain "unpublished" until then, it's possible. But you'd have to manage to explain how a publishing company got a hold of the painting to reprint it without being published. The entry you refer to references seven different works by different authors, so they don't seem to be copyrighting the original works. That is in a "Classes H-K" section of registrations, which is "Reproductions of a work of art; Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character; Photographs; Prints and pictorial illustrations" (which are taken directly from Section 5 of the s:Copyright Act of 1909). So it would seem as though these were just commercial prints or reproductions of the painting, and that there was some sort of additional expression added such that the additional derivative work was allowed copyright protection (which still exists), but would have no bearing on the copyright of the original painting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I found a 1918 German book showing this portrait under a different name "Mann mit Nelke"; I made changes based on that. I would hope that Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co. decisions doesn't apply, does it? George Ho (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Almost forgot; there is another painting called "Bildnis eines jungen Mannes mit Mütze", according to the same source (but in different printing). I'm trying to say that, if German book went first, I guess US copyright registration would no longer hold grounds. George Ho (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the U.S. copyright is about additional expression present in the reprint, not the original. And no, Twin Books cannot apply to anything published before 1909 because the earlier law was explicit about foreign publication also counting for the U.S. They left out the explicit mention in the re-written law which is what provided room for the judge to rule in Twin Books. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

legal?

Are these files legal to use in the way user uploaded? Thank you, Conny (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC).

I notice that Neueoberschule resembles another name de:Gymnasium Neue Oberschule (Braunschweig). I wonder whether it follows Commons:Username policy. George Ho (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
A number of files require permission, which I've now requested from the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I think we should watch these content carefully. Regards, Conny (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC).

TOO for the Philippines

There’s no info in COM:TOO for the Philippines. Does anyone know whether it is similar to COM:TOO#United States? I’m trying to determine whether en:File:TV5 (ABC5) Logo.png would be acceptable for Commons as {{PD-logo}} or if it only can be treated as PD locally in English Wikipedia as en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I am sure that digit '5' in a red circle is below TOO of any country. Ruslik (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
How can you be so sure? A simple triangular modification to the letter E was enough to make a logo copyrighted in the UK. A circle seems to be about as complex as a minor triangular modification of a letter. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
See also w:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that the logo is so simple that it can be independently and accidentally re-created by someone who has never seen it. This means that it lacks originality. Examples are easy to find: ru:File:5ka_logo.png. Ruslik (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback for everyone. I guess the question then is whether Commons is likely keep this file since there's no point in converting it to "PD-logo" and moving it to Commons if all that's going to happen is that the file is going to be deleted. The "PD-ineligible-USonly" is a local English Wikipedia template that can be sorted out there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
FWIW the law itself doesn’t seem to say anything about ToO either; it refers to “original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain” without offering any definition of “original“. (The FAQ link at enWP seems dead.) I guess it’s pretty common for countries to leave such details to the courts.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the way the threshold of originality usually is codified in the law. In fact, the law of the Philippines is more specific than many other laws in that the law uses the word "original" whereas other laws often hide that requirement in words such as "work" and "create". --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Are simple geometric files traced from copyrighted files in the PD?

I've recently uploaded File:Phoenix Lights traingle.svg. I created the image by tracing a part of a copyrighted image from a newspaper (Fair Use file from the English Wikipedia here: [6]). Because the traced image is technically simple geometry, is it under the Public Domain, or is it also copyrighted? Thank you! Codyorb (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I took a closer look at the rules, and it's OK. Codyorb (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Helene Öberg.jpg

If this old image is free and not copyrighted, please feel free to pass it. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry about the picture for Trump-Kim Meeting

Dear experienced Wikimedia users,
Please let me know your opinion whether I can upload this picture below on "Trump-Kim meeting" on wikipedia. ?

 
example picture of Trump-Kim Meeting


I created this image by the public domain files on wikipedia. Thank you reading my inquiry. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

First you need to put source and author information for both source-images into the description. --Túrelio (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:Túrelio,
Thank you for your prompt response. I placed the author information for both source-images into the description. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've corrected the source and author entries. However, I am not sure by myself for the license of the montage, as it is composed of a PD-US and a KOGL (CC-BY type) image. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't think that's a derivative work -- rather a composite work, and there is no selection and arrangement copyright on just two items. So don't think there is any copyright over and above the original two photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio, Clindberg,
Thank you for your kind update and response. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyright on KCNA (Korean Central News Agency)

Dear experienced Wikimedia users,
Would you please let me know your opinion whether it is possible to upload the picture below on Wikimedia?
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kim-jong-un-taunts-trump-with-photo-of-hair-withstanding-gale-force-wind

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it's an agency photo, not under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, Thank you. I might try to email them about the approval if possible Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

PD-Logo eligibility

Could someone experienced verify whether this files are simple enough to be out of copyright as claimed? Thanks in advance. ~Cybularny Speak? 11:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Although I'm not as experienced as other Wikimedians, File:WrestleManiaIXLogo.png, File:WrestleMania X Logo.png, and file:Logo-wom08.gif are far too intricate to fall under PD. I'm nominating them for speedy deletion, although I'm not sure about the others. Codyorb (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ikebana photos

This is a continuation of Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/03#File:2017 Ikenobou Autumn Tanabata Exhibition Souka Hyakki (9).jpg and also of discussions at User talk:Jeff G.#Ikebana photos, User talk:Marchjuly#Ikebana photos and User talk:Gryffindor#Ikebana photos.

The question has to do with whether Ikebana arrangements such as the one shown in File:2017 Ikenobou Autumn Tanabata Exhibition Souka Hyakki (9).jpg are considered copyrightable works of art per COM:FOP#Japan, particularly when the arrangement in question is not an original one, but a "copy" of an older historical arrangement which is considered to be within the public domain. My feeling is that the "copy" is not a simple mechanical reproduction, but rather a derivative work which is eligible for its own copyright regardless of the copyright status of the work it is based upon. I do not dispute the claim of ownership of the photo itself; I am only unsure as to whether the work depicted can be claimed to not eligible for copyright protection because it is based upon an older PD work or because of Japanese copyright law, §46.

It has been suggested that this be discussed at COM:DR which is an option. However, there will be no need for a DR if it can be satisfactorily resolved here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. The arrangements in the exhibition concerning Category:Sōka Hyakki are copies from public domain originals from the 1820's. They were explicitly placed there in the exhibition about the Sōka Hyakki with a picture of the painting displayed next to the respective piece. Therefore the treshold of originality is not given, as beautiful as the works are of course. This also applies to this large arrangement here File:花戦さ 大砂物 01.jpg, which is explicitly a copy of an original piece that was done in the 16th century. If it was something completely new, and there are a lot of flower arrangements of that sort, then it would be that the treshold of originality is given. Otherwise we will have to extend this discussion to all things traditional Japanese including lacquerware, pottery, kimono, etc. Is a handicraft (工芸 kōgei) product that is done today but using traditional methods and patterns and decoration copyrighted or not? Gryffindor (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me, but these are just plants and trees... How that could have a copyright? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
en:Ikebana is a traditional Japanese art form in which the arranger uses "plants and trees" (just like a painter uses paint or a sculptor uses stone, etc.) to create an artistic work. I don't kow how reliable this website is, but Ikebana is listed as a type of artistic works eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Then you should try to delete Category:Bonsai. Good luck... Yann (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily trying to get anything deleted and certainly not a whole category of images, so I'm not sure why you would suggest such a thing. I'm just asking whether the works depicted in the photos like the one linked to above are considered to an artform be protected by copyright. Moreover, I think there's an important difference between en:Bonsai and Ikebana: I believe bonsai trees are living so to speak and part of the "art" is tending to them as they grow over time whereas Ikebana is more of arranging using cut flowers, stems, etc. where the focus is entirely on the visual presentation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
If you find an explicit court case, that would answer it, or maybe if there is a tradition for claiming copyright in such things. Otherwise, not sure how we would really know. That website link does give a lot of references to court cases, but does not appear to give a reference for its flower arrangement claim. A court case may give reasons why the judge thought it was copyrightable, and give hints on the limits of the protection. For example, if there are common styles of arrangement, can arrangements in such a style be considered original? And even that may not answer whether photographs can be derivative works -- it's possible the (theoretical at this point) protection is primarily against other flower arrangers. For the U.S., it would be questionable, since there would be no fixation -- and I see no direct mention of it on copyright.gov. The plants themselves are not copyrightable (however artificial flowers have been ruled copyrightable in the U.S.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Marchuly, I understand what you are saying and I respect your concerns and I think you make valid points. I just don't necessarily agree with you. Ikebana arrangements of the modern type can have artistic merit, but primarily and essentially it is non-commercial floristry or even more specifically floral design, also known as floral arrangement. Persons who do ikebana, or kadō (華道), even those who do it full-time, do not consider themselves artists (美術家 bijutsuka) but practitioners (華道家 kadōka). So our question here is does that fall into copyright? What about the images we have here Category:Floristry in that case? Gryffindor (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
If general practice is that copyright is not involved in that industry, I don't think we should assume it is. If a future court case expands the scope of copyright to cover those, then we will adjust then. If there *is* a court case on such matters, that would give us better guidance we can go by. Until then, I'd probably not worry about it. If there hasn't been a copyright case over such photos in the last 150 years, it's probably not an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That's fine. I haven't been able to find any specific court cases; only general some "general statements" that Ikebana is an "artistic work". These statements, however, might be more of the opinion of the website creator/operator than based upon actual decisions made by Japanese courts. I originally brought this up at VP/C for clarification and the original reply I got was that OTRS verification from the artst (practioner) was necessary. After the original thread was archived, I tried to get further clarification and once again was told that OTRS verification was needed and bringing things up for discussion at DR was suggested. However, after further discussion, I decided to try VP/C once again to get more feedback. Clindberg's first post made some good points, so things are resolved for me. I'm not intrested in creating any new interpretations of Japanese copyright law.
Also, for some reason, I didn't notice Gryffindor's first post above until now, so my apologies for that. My subsequent response was directed to Yann and not a comment on what Gryffindor posted. I think it's an interesting question about whether old establish processes/techiniques can be used to create replicas of historical works which are eligible for copyright protection. I believe a process can be "patented", and a machine can use this process to create identical copies of the same thing over an over again which would not be eligible for copyright protection. However, when it's individuals doing the recreating, then I'm not so sure it's the same can automatically be said since there may be some creative interpretation involved. Even though the individual is following some patented technique and basing their work on something created by someone else, their actual creation might not be an "exact" replica of the original. Whether this always means it's eligible for its own copyright, I'm not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I think you raise some really interesting points. I agree with Carl Lindberg that in the absence of any clear court rulings or law that we leave it as it is until something new comes up in the legal system. Basically the law is that there is no law on floral arrangement. I think one of the reasons could be that there is no copyright on natural materials such as flowers, or branches, or trees, or stones: nature and natural material is in the public domain. However when for example a wood sculptor uses the natural material wood, and changes it beyond recognition from the original appearance to make a statue, that statue would fall under copyright. But if someone (even if that person considers themselves to be an artist) takes some flowers and branches and turns and twists it in a certain direction and creates something, that does not mean that the legal definition of the treshold of originality is given since the material is clearly still recognisable in its original state and appearance. I hope I'm making sense? Gryffindor (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: That makes good sense, the flowers and branches don't exceed TOO.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Jeff G. Are there any further objections or comments to this matter? I would like to update the text in TOO for Japan to add this issue for those users who are not familiar with this topic Commons_talk:Threshold_of_originality#Floristry_pictures. Should the legal situation change then it can always be revisited of course. Gryffindor (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

US anonymous work

Does PD-anon-50 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-anon-50 (Template:Anonymous work) apply for us works? I mean photograph from 1920s from USA by unknown photographer. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.221.44.226 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No. As the template says, "This template does not apply to works from countries that extended the Berne Convention or that did not sign it. In particular, this includes the European Union, the United States, India, and Russia." If the photograph was published before 1923, then {{PD-1923}} applies. Otherwise, it's probably still in copyright. --bjh21 (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
What about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-anon-70. Does it apply? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.102.7.216 (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
No. For U.S. photographs, one of {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, or {{PD-US-no notice}} would need to apply (and the latter two require some additional proof or research). If the photograph was never published, it can get trickier. You can look at Commons:Hirtle chart to see about the U.S. copyright status, and the possible tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I figured it out that it wasn't so simple. If the author is anonymous can we assume that there is no notice. How I can chack copyright notice anyway? Look, for example, at http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/cdm/singleitem/collection/ahfrein/id/24/rec/11, the creator is unknown, taken and probably published in 1923. Does Template:PD-US-no notice is ok for this? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.102.7.216 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
For most U.S. works, publication date matters the most. If for example that was a private photograph only donated to that library since 1989, i.e. it was unpublished all that time, it would still be under copyright for some time yet. If it was published in 1923, it could be without notice, or it could be still under copyright (until the end of this year). Determining publication for stuff like this is really hard. Looks like the photo was in someone's collection which got donated; the question then was if it was a photograph taken by the collector, or just a photo copied from some published source in some year in the past? We may need more history on where the photo came from unfortunately. There are good odds it was published without notice, but for Commons we prefer to see some actual evidence of that (i.e. a distributed copy with no notice). The current U.S. term is the earlier of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation for anonymous works, which has not passed yet, but the notice/renewal requirements may have made it become PD already -- if there is concrete evidence of such happening. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
they have a fees and permission page here [7] now dead. it looks like a private photo, subject to a gift (term unknown) [8] - we have had some success talking to archives, about helping them scan, and linking to their collections for some click throughs. but it requires some GLAM partnership management. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Two items on Wikidata for copyright

We are trying to improve copyright related items in wikidata. We have at the moment two items for closely related items for 'copyright': Q12948581 and Q38746. There seems to be a distinction?, but that is not reflected in the labels, properties and wikilinks. Can someone explain what the difference should be and how we can reflect that in correct claims and interwikilinks? --Hannolans (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Not all countries use the term "copyright"; many instead use the term "author's rights". Copyright was a UK/US term, whereas (for example) France uses "w:author's rights" (or droit d’auteur). Common law countries more often will use "copyright" and civil law countries will usually use author's rights, but it's not absolute either way. Most of the time, "author's rights" are split into "economic rights" and "w:moral rights". The economic right is generally the right to make and publish copies, etc. It is a "transferrable" right, in that you can sell the rights to other people, and is analogous to the U.S. concept of "copyright". Moral rights is more the right to be attributed, the ability to preserve the "integrity" of the work, and that sort of thing -- typically those rights are not transferrable (they cannot be sold and remain with the author), and sometimes they can last forever. The U.S. has very limited versions of moral rights and so is generally not part of the U.S. "copyright" concept, but it does exist in the Berne Convention so most countries do have a form of it. Most of the Berne Convention is about the economic right, but Article 6bis is about moral rights, all encapsulated under "author's rights".
So... sometimes the terms are interchangeable, in that they refer to the scope of the rights of authors, artists, etc. in a given country's law. But, "copyright" can also be more specifically the familiar right to publish, copy, distribute, etc. (the transferrable rights), analogous to the "economic right" in particular and not moral rights. Many copyright laws these days also define "neighboring rights" or "related rights", which are the rights of performers, and such rights are usually also in a country's copyright / author's rights law even though they are not governed by the Berne Convention but rather other treaties (like the Rome Convention). I'm not sure if the items in Wikidata are actually used consistently one way or the other, but betting they are a bit muddled. Not sure what Wikidata's criteria is on such things, and if they deserve to be two items or not (or if they are used interchangeably). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this clarification. The two concepts of copyright are not consistent if I look to the interwikilinks across languages and that would be step one before we can structurise copyright further.--Hannolans (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Official flags of municipalities

This user (TakisA1) upload official flags of municipalities as self cc-by-sa-4.0. This user revert all my speedy deletions and my note in their talkpage. --Phailoteam (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

TakisA1 that you dont understand is the logos of municipalities created from others who has the copyright of their works. Your work is only a faithful copying of the original. Maybe your files be kept in commons with other licensing, because the licensing self cc-by-sa-4.0 is copyright violation. Maybe, your files will be deleted. I dont care about that. I am not responsible for that! --Phailoteam (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your time, but almost all of the coat of arms in the flags are very old. Especially in Aegina's flag wich consists of a turtle as seen in a 2000 years old coin and some geometric shapes. (TakisA1 (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC))


Generally, the copyright is with the person who drew the specific SVG. That may have copyright over and above any pictorial element. Per Commons:Coats of arms, we generally don't consider the basic design of a coat of arms (or flag) as part of the copyright -- rather it is more of an idea. Each individual drawing therefore can have its own separate copyright (they are different expressions of the same idea). If a design leaves no room for creativity, then the result may not be copyrightable at all, per the merger doctrine (outside possibilities like a particular way of coding it in the SVG source counting as a computer program). So yes, individual flag drawings can be "own work", and certainly should not have speedy tags on them. If a drawing incorporates a copyrighted graphic work from elsewhere, or traced from another graphic, or is flat-out copied from an Internet site, those can be issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

File:"Trumpet-bush" by Mary Louise McQuiston Evans.jpg

This image is PD but I don't know who made it PD. Was it the US Government? Perhaps someone can revise the license template. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Not enough info is there, but if the artist was employed by the U.S. government it would be PD, otherwise it would be PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed. Not completely sure of the identities, but it looks like the artist lived from 5 December 1884 to 25 June 1949, and her husband was Herbert H(eard) Evans, 4 April 1880 to 14 May 1962, both buried in Mississippi.[9] Mr. Evans worked at the Panama Canal Commission (part of the US Government) from 1919 to 1939 it would seem. The above work was created 1935-36 from its record at the source. It seems he donated a collection to the Smithsonian in 1954. Not sure if these works were part of it, but that would make sense. If so, probably not a PD-USGov work, but PD for another reason. There is the {{PD-US}} tag when we are not sure of the exact reason, which may be best here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
i would vote for PD-no notice. do not see any reason to second guess Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation. maybe we can talk to smithsonian about a finding aid. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Avatar origin

Hi,

Can someone take a look at File:Human computer interaction.png? This image seems to be created from uncredited elements.

I haven't found what is the software, what are the assets being those avatars. But I think that Jhalmuri can't claim being the only author (if is not the author of those assets).

Thank you for taking a look,
Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Got it. This is https://robohash.org/
"You are free to embed under the terms of the CC-BY license.
Example wording might be "Robots lovingly delivered by Robohash.org" or something."
How exactly to apply this on WM Commons?
author=Zikri Kader
--Lacrymocéphale (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The precise licence is mentioned at https://github.com/e1ven/Robohash as being CC BY 3.0, so I think {{cc-by-3.0|Robots lovingly delivered by Robohash.org}} would be appropriate. --bjh21 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

♦--I uploaded the avatar, am I violating any norms? Jhalmuri (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jhalmuri: Partially, yes. You're claiming being the author of image generated by the work of someone else.
If, by the help of a software developed by some else, you choose some assets authored by someone else to compose your avatar, you're probably not the real author nor the only author.
If you screenshot a software, you're not the author of the layout.
--Lacrymocéphale (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Tagged as "no source". Please fix that. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Is met de Disclaimer van Erfgoed Leiden, de inhoud op te vatten als PD?

"Erfgoed Leiden" stelt op de hoofdpagina http://leiden.courant.nu, onder het hoofdstuk Disclaimer, dat er toestemming is van de uitgever om dit erfgoed op internet toegankelijk te maken voor niet-commercieel gebruik. Geeft dit voldoende vrijwaring om tekst en afbeeldingen van die site te hergebruiken in Wikipedia of Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by appelsla (talk • contribs)

@Appelsla: Nee, helaas niet per definitie. Commons vergt dat werken volledig vrij (her)bruikbaar zijn en dat is inclusief een potentieel commercieel gebruik (ook al zijn we zelf niet commercieel). De enige restrictie die gesteld mag worden is eigenlijk het evt. moeten vermelding van de bron/maker. Zie ook Commons:Licensing. Het kan wel zo zijn dat sommige werken die daar nu staan überhaupt niet meer aan auteursrecht onderhevig zijn, maar dat kan niet rechtstreeks worden afgeleid uit de Disclaimer. Je zal dat zelf moeten uitzoeken en dat is bepaald niet makkelijk. Het auteursrecht moet zowel in Nederland als in America verlopen zijn. In de praktijk zit je voor america dan met alles voor 1923 wel goed. In nederland verloopt het auteursrecht echter 70 jaar na publicatie, maar alleen als de schrijver in opdracht van de krant werkt (stukken die door schrijvers verkocht zijn aan de krant, daarvan vervalt het recht pas 70 jaar na het overlijden van de auteur). Dat laatste is nogal lastig uit te zoeken, dus als je het niet specifiek uitzoekt, dan moet iets echt zo'n 150 jaar oud zijn, wil je er vanuit kunnen gaan dat er in Nederland geen auteursrecht meer op zit. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Robert Randall photos in LOOK magazine, 1963

Any ideas on the copyright status of a set of photographs by Robert Randall published in Look magazine in 1963 about the making of the film 55 Days at Peking? I understand most Look magazine photos are public domain under {{PD-Look}}, but there seem to be exceptions if the photographer was "not a staff photographer of Look." Alternatively, would these photos qualify under {{PD-US-not renewed}} as they were published in 1963? --Muzilon (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Best I can find, he was an American living in Paris and was a fashion photographer for Vogue in the 1950s. Unsure if he changed employment later or was just a contributor. Look magazine did renew their issues, starting with their 1937 issues apparently (it's always possible they failed for particular issues after that). Unsure if that would serve to renew copyright to the photos as a contribution to a periodical, even if they were not the owner. But if they did have part of the copyright (maybe as owner of an exclusive right), it could be possible. Would depend on the contract and even when Randall died (if he has), as death before the 28-year period could cause all rights to revert to heirs thus they would be the only ones who could file a renewal, etc. We would probably need to know a bit more about his employment status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
What a tangled web. A quick Google search turns up several photographers and authors named Robert Randall, so it's difficult to identify which one he is, or whether he's still alive. He may be the same Robert Randall who published a book about fashion photography in 1984. I've emailed the publisher (Prentice-Hall) asking if they can provide contact details for his estate.--Muzilon (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
i don't think these have been digitized https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2016716407/ unless you are planning a visit to LOC for the 790 slides. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
What I had in mind was scanning the 7 photos from this set that were published in the print edition of LOOK magazine dated 29 January 1963.--Muzilon (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
excellent, you can always park the scans at flickr with "no known copyright", or internet archive, and then upload here with PD-no renewal. (the slides at LOC will be higher resolution) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
If I understand Carl Lindberg correctly, we first need to confirm that these photos have indeed fallen into PD. For the record, here is an image scan of the Contents page of the relevant issue of Look on Ebay. Randall is not listed among the Look staff photographers in the masthead, but he is credited for the photos on pp. 36-40 ("Fashion Faces East"). This suggests he may have been an independent contributor rather than a Look staff photographer.--Muzilon (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I would say it's likely that he was just a contributor. The really nasty question is if these were the first publication of the photos, or if they first appeared elsewhere in France, which would change the country of origin (and mean they are definitely not PD). As for renewals, it looks like Cowles Communications renewed all Look magazine issues from 1937 through 1957 or so; in 1985 it looks like they sold all of the non-photo copyrights to WESH-TV (they had previously given all their photo copyrights to the Library of Congress). I'm not sure that WESH bothered to renew after that; at least I could not find them. There are a number of Robert Randalls in the copyright.gov records but I'm not sure I see a likely renewal for this stuff. So if these were the first publication of the photos, PD-US-not_renewed seems fairly likely. There could be other names to search for, if there were other copyright transfers, but you'd think Randall's name would be there somewhere. I did find one source that claimed Robert Randall was a pseudonym for w:Robert Doisneau, but not sure that squares with him writing an English-language book in 1984, and other descriptions of him being an American. But we don't have much information on Randall at all, which makes determinations harder. Wonder if that book has any biographic information. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The author's biographical note in the 1984 Prentice-Hall book says "Robert Randall has photographed editorially for the French edition of Vogue, Seventeen, Good Housekeeping, and Cosmopolitan magazines." So, likely the same photographer, whether a pseudonym or not. No reply yet from Prentice-Hall, so I've also emailed Condé Nast (publisher of Vogue, etc.) to see if they can refer us to whoever controls the rights to Randall's work.--Muzilon (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have found (via Google) some U.S. newspaper obituaries from September 1984 – "Robert Randall, 65, fashion photographer whose work was published in Seventeen, Good Housekeeping and Cosmopolitan magazines. Died in La Jolla, California." (Still no reply from either publishing house, though.) --Muzilon (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Nice. FindAGrave has a Robert S. Randall who lived from December 17, 1918 to September 19, 1984 and is buried in California[10] -- that fits those articles. That person was also a Photographer's Mate 1st Class Petty Officer in the U.S. Navy, as that record is also at https://gravelocator.cem.va.gov/. If that is the same person as the one who contributed to Look, that means that renewal rights would have reverted to his estate if it was not a work for hire, and the renewals would have had to have his name on it (unless the estate sold the copyright after 1984), which I don't think exist (they would be online at www.copyright.gov). So, the only question is if those photos were published elsewhere, which may be hard to prove. I might consider those OK to upload -- if it turns out they were earlier published in another country, we could delete then, but if the best evidence says they are U.S. photos I think they are OK as PD-US-not_renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I had a dig around the genealogy websites and agree that navy gravesite you found is likely to be his. It appears his middle name was Shelby. (He may be the same Robert Shelby Randall who appeared as an extra in the WW2 navy movie w:They Were Expendable.) I found no record of a marriage or children, but he may have had a brother and nephew who are also now deceased. So, the chances of contacting his heirs or estate seem slim at this point. With regard to the possibility of the photographs having been published outside the USA, it may (or may not) be relevant to note that these photos were apparently taken in Spain, which is where 55 Days at Peking was filmed.--Muzilon (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and another tidbit of information from the San Bernadino Sun in 1973: "...Robert Randall, formerly of Paris and New York, now resident of Laguna Beach. The noted photographer began his career in Paris, working for seven years as a staff member of Vogue. After Paris he worked in New York for 15 years on assignments for Harpers Bazaar, Look and Seventeen."--Muzilon (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Bingo. Very nice find, well done. That pretty much connects all the above dots and shows we have the right person. If he was only at Vogue for seven years, then he was back in the U.S. by 1963. And if he made the photos on assignment for Look, then it's most likely the appearance in that magazine was the first publication. Whether Look owned the copyright or if Randall owned them, either way there needs to be a renewal on www.copyright.gov and I can't find one. But that bit of info makes it virtually certain that the U.S. was the country of first publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
So what's our next move? Wait to hear back from his former publishers (I am beginning to lose hope of receiving a response), or go ahead and upload the scans? Or just go with "Fair Use" on WP?--Muzilon (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I would go ahead and upload them as PD-US-not_renewed I think. As I said before, if they were U.S. works I think they're OK, and that last bit makes it by far most likely that the Look publication was the first one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've ordered a copy of the Look magazine in question. Thanks for your research. I've belatedly discovered a detailed obituary for Randall in the L.A. Times which probably would have answered most of our questions about him in the first place. Maybe he warrants his own WP biography ;) --Muzilon (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Muzilon: w:Robert Randall (photographer) awaits. :)   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, draft bio submitted here -- w:Draft:Robert Randall (photographer). Hopefully he's deemed "notable" enough! --Muzilon (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Muzilon: Thanks for all your hard work, w:Robert Randall (photographer) is now live.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Right owner of a closed down company's production

Hi,

From my point of view, when a company closes, its products doesn't fall in the public domain. Am I right? I have difficulty to explain to an user that uploading catalogues of a closed company is a copyvio. Please, help.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lacrymocéphale: You are correct. You are describing an en:Orphan work - see fr:Œuvre orpheline or d:1546053. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Um... That would be d:Q1546053. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
when you figure out how to explain orghans, let me know - i would like a simple explanation. i.e. how to find an answer among the successor assigns if any. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Is a multimedia collage a derivative work?

(I raised this on the Village Pump last month without reaching any clear conclusions, and it was suggested that the Copyright pump (which I hadn't noticed) might be a better place for it, so here we go.)

User:Stephencdickson has uploaded several useful pastel artworks to illustrate Wikipedia biographies where no photos of the person exist on Commons. These portraits appear to be collages made from printing out a blown-up digital photo, affixing it over a background sheet, and then applying pastel shading and texture over the top. For example, the user appears to have based [[:]] (shown right) on http://www.thegallantpioneers.co.uk/images/SirJohnUre.jpg. When viewed full size there is visible pixelisation consistent with a printed digital photograph, particularly on the top of the head and the collar.

When asked about these files, Stephencdickson said that the images were a result of "specific requests from other wikimedia/wikipedia authors and senior editors to use the technique", but it wasn't clear where these requests were made, or what exact technique has been used. I'm hesitant to flag these uploads for deletion in case they're lost too hastily, as time has gone into them and they're extremely useful for the project if permissible, but I think there may have been a misunderstanding here - perhaps the user was given advice to draw over a digital image and upload only the drawn layer, or encouraged to expand and texture low-res public domain photos. From StephenCDickson's comments in the other thread, though, (that "it does NOT breach copyright which is ther whole POINT of me using this rather elaborate and time consuming technique") it sounds as if they believe that the collage process is sufficient to remove the original copyright.

So does it, or are these derivative works which should be taken down if the original image is still in copyright? Can Stephencdickson clarify the requests they were given? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO, it's morally inacceptable that [[:]] is claimed entirely as "own work" by Stephen C Dickson, when it is clearly a derivative of SirJohnUre.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Túrelio. We need to track down the bad advice and who gave it, and stop them from giving it on WMF projects.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Partially copying my comment from the thread linked above, posted after it had died off. I'm curious about the context of other parties on Wikipedia/Wikimedia encouraged me to use the technique. Could you provide a link? I don't doubt it -- I'm just interested to see the conversation and/or who provided that advice, as maybe they have some insight I'm missing. It's not a crucial detail, though. That said, I'm struggling to see some of these as something other than derivative work that would need to consider the copyright of the original. I think the commitment to the project and the time/skill you put into this are admirable, but I don't see how -- legally speaking -- this would be any different from rotoscoping, animating, applying photoshop filters, or any other more basic technique that creates an alternative version of an existing work. There's enough originality for you to have your own copyright on this, of course, but the original would still be applicable too (unless it has expired, as in my comments above). In addition to the one that started this thread (and including three that are not by the same author):

— Rhododendrites talk |  14:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that there are many others (several dozen at least) just like these. Some are based on public domain works, but none look to acknowledge the original and many are based on copyrighted works. — Rhododendrites talk |  04:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Ones based on PD works are fine, though it's best to note the source material. Any of this style based on copyrighted works should be deleted, in my opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Every single one of the above list is a derivative work to me, and it's not close. Per this circular, a "drawing based on a photograph" is one of the given examples of a derivative work, so it's definitely possible. Per that same circular, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work. So, you do have to copy some of the copyrightable expression from an earlier work. When it comes to photographs, that is sometimes a bit tricky -- the expression is usually the angle, the framing, and other related elements under control of the photographer. When it's an in-studio portrait, as opposed to just a snapshot, that opens up other possibilities such as a specific pose of the subject, or a specific facial expression evoked by the photographer, etc. So, if those elements are present in the drawing, that is copied expression still subject to the underlying copyright, even though the drawing added additional copyrightable expression. It is possible to make drawings that are not derivatives of photographs, if you are just using the photos to see what a person looks like (that is not copyrightable), and come up with an original angle, facial expression, and that sort of thing. But when you can identify a particular photograph as being the basis, it's almost certainly a derivative work.
For example, the Obama "Hope" poster was identifiably based on one particular AP photograph. It was ruled not be fair use, which was really the only possible defense at that point, so the parties settled before the inevitable ruling of copyright infringement. Despite looking different, that was not really "transformative" in the sense of copyright law -- it wasn't saying anything else about Obama (like a parody or a different viewpoint), it was just making a good image of Obama and using someone else's expression to get there. These drawings are no different. In fact, at least one of the above is based on a *painting*, where none of the arguments of photographic expression can be used -- 100% of the source image is copyrightable expression, and that artist is still alive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
+1 to all that. Regarding the supposed advice or encouragement, I‘m reminded of this initiative, where an emphatic caution is given against creating DWs. The concept is exactly the same as avoiding close paraphrasing of textual sources, instead presenting the underlying facts “in one’s own words”.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I was not impressed by some of the comments made in the previous discussion. In particular this one: I studied copyright law for three years so if you think this is a breach please point me to the relevant clause in the law. I know it does NOT breach copyright which is ther whole POINT of me using this rather elaborate and time consuming technique. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No. That person may have confused adding their own copyright expression with not copying someone else's expression. If they were advised that that sort of thing was OK, we should track that down and correct it. That's extremely unfortunate because that contributor clearly went to an awful lot of work to help the project, but was misled badly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the user's Wikipedia talk page, it has a thread where they mention their pastel works being "deliberately created to avoid copyright issues as they then become my own material" and User:Carcharoth agreeing that Am glad to hear they are composite works, as that does indeed avoid copyright issues! and requesting similar illustrations for other articles. I don't know if that was the full extent of the "specific requests from other wikimedia/wikipedia authors and senior editors to use the technique". --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Presumably there was something before that, as he seems to already be under the impression this technique negates copyright issues (and presumably the instructions predate the earliest examples). It seems like a DR is pretty inevitable at this point, since the problem is so stark. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Have now reluctantly flagged these up at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Stephencdickson. There are a lot of them. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have checkerd with two UK copyright lawyers and neither see the issue. My work is largely based on non-copyright newspaper photographs from the 19th century where the quality is too poor to be meaningful. The "derivative" aspect is largely irrelevant in terms of copyright law as they are based on non or expired copyright works. As I am getting a bit fed up with this AND IS THIS WAS A TRULY HUGE AMOUNT OF PERSONAL WORK I hav e also discussed the issue of removal of said items in relation to UK lawv on destruction of intellectual property as both lawyers agree these images are my own inte;llectual property. Instead of guessing why not consult the actual law !! If it were as you state Warhol and Lichtenstein would have most works deleted. The law is clear on the intellectual intent of works. Moreover you appear to be saying that the originally poor quality image could be shown (as it is non-copyright) but my redrawn image cannot. This is totally illogical. I studied copyright law in its own right as oart of my university course and your interpretation is bizarre. If these are deleted lawyers will definitely be informed... but they already tell me if the deleters are not in UK it falls into the same trap of UK copyright law versus internsational copyright law. The normal UK approach is that if it is not a copyright issue in UK and is created here it cannot then be considered as a wider copyright issue. IS THERE ANYONE MORE SENIOR I CAN SPEAK TO AS THESE WORKS TAKE SEVERAL HOURS EACH AND ARE ALL DONE BY HAND (despite some mention of photoshop this is not my technique) before beginning this task I fully checked against copyright law so please show me the clause which you believe is breached. Also please explain why any issue arises where the source material is non-copyright? --Stephencdickson (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stephencdickson,
There is no really "senior" people here, but Carl Lindberg is definitely one of the most knowledgeable people on copyright in Commons. If the source of your images are 19th century pictures, there isn't copyright issue, but then there isn't any point of not using the picture directly. In this case, your work would be out of scope. Sorry for the work you did in vain. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The Arthur Conan Doyle estate has sued people in the US over Sherlock Holmes despite those works being from the UK and public domain there. The WMF is founded in the US and is obliged to follow US law, and reusers are in various jurisdictions and obliged to follow their own local laws, so the "normal UK approach" is irrelevant here. The question is not the PD works, but instead the works that are still under copyright that you effectively made a copy of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
"it's morally inacceptable" to bite good faith newbies. if you cannot collaborate with new editors then do not interact, and let those that can do so. and that includes DR's. "somebody got sued, so be very afraid" is not an adequate excuse. the work is in use, so it is in scope. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi Stephencdickson, it really is troubling that you were told this technique avoided copyright issues. If you could point to where that advice was given, it would help to make sure that it gets changed. It is awful to see how much effort you have given just to be a copyright issue in the end.
As for the copyright issues, maybe I can point you in a couple of places. If you have made works based on photographs which have expired, then you are correct, there is no issue. Copyright can last a disturbingly long time, however. 19th century will usually be OK, 20th century often not. If the author is known, copyright in the UK will last their entire life plus 70 more years. In the U.S., copyright lasts 95 years after publication (with a bunch of edge cases). Commons needs the underlying work to be public domain in both the U.S. and the country of origin (usually the country of first publication). Most of the links given above are 20th century photos though, and one is a painting where the artist is still alive.
For the U.S., there is a Copyright Office circular which defines derivative works in U.S. law. In there, "drawing made from a photograph" is one of the canonical examples. If you can identify a specific photograph as the basis of the photo, odds are likely that some copyright expression was copied. One recent example was the Obama "Hope" poster, which was based on a particular AP photograph of Obama. The case is summarized here, showing each side's arguments. The case was settled so there was no binding ruling on the matters of law there, though the judge earlier told the artist that "sooner or later" the AP was most likely going to win, and was urging the two sides to settle. It took a few months, but they did.
The nature of "copyrightable expression" in a photograph can be difficult. The "facts" shown in a photograph are not copyrightable. Starting with s: Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, and continuing with other cases, photographs have been ruled copyrightable based on the lighting, angle, framing, and selection of film and camera, i.e. elements under control of the photographer. When in a studio setting, or other place where the photographer controls the scene, the photographer's expression can expand to the pose, arrangement of accessories in the photo, and the facial expression evoked by the photographer.[11] If these elements are copied in a drawing, that would make it a derivative work. Those latter elements came into play in the w:Rogers v. Koons case -- an artist made a sculpture of a scene from a photograph. Unfortunately, the specific pose in the photograph had been worked on by the photographer, and so that became the expression which was copied.
A composite work is something different; that is the selection and arrangement of existing works and is called a "collective work" in U.S. law. For example, choosing a "best of" album of an artist, there can be a selection and arrangement copyright on the songs chosen and their ordering, over and above the copyright in the songs themselves (though obviously you would need to license those songs in order to actually distribute a "best of" album). Once the final work melds everything into a single work, it would be derivative.
The UK is definitely different. They do define "adaptations", but their law limits adaptations to literary, dramatic, and musical works in article 21. Therefore this type of drawing would not be an "adaptation" in UK law. The UK however could still rule them violations of the normal reproductive right, if any expression from the original is copied in your drawings -- that is how they protect artistic copyrights. If you are making a drawing of a painting, you are certainly copying expression from the painter. It's possible the UK defines its expression in photographs differently, but that is the area where the trouble would lie, and it seems likely that would happen in these cases.[12] Per this treatise, where the author thinks the UK rights are not as expansive as the US derivative rights, when determining if infringement has occurred, the courts ask whether the defendant's work competes in the market with the plaintiff's work. I would think that very similar images would compete in a market of artistic images of the subject. And even UK courts can go further -- w:Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd ruled an image derivative even though it mostly just copied concepts from the original. You can see more details on the case here, including the two works. That case is controversial, and I would have not believed a U.S. court would rule that derivative, though individual cases (especially at lower levels of courts which have less copyright experience) can vary widely and get some weird results.
In short, I think all of your drawings listed above fit the U.S. definition of a derivative work, and like reproduce expression per UK law as well. Some of them have very distinctive poses in studio portraits, which is copied in the drawing, and that sort of thing. It is possible to make drawings which are not derivative of a source photo, but I would try to come up with an original angle and pose of the subject. You can use photos as a reference for what someone looks like, but once you copy specific elements of the photo (angle, facial expression, etc.) then it most likely runs afoul of copyright law. If the underlying work has expired, then great -- but you would need to check their status on the UK copyright chart (if they are UK works), and also the Commons:Hirtle chart. Wikimedia Commons is a U.S. institution and definitely needs to abide by U.S. law -- if a rightsholder of an underlying work submitted a DMCA takedown on these drawings, I think the WMF would comply. That would make them "non-free", unfortunately, without a license. But if we can show the copyright of the underlying work has expired, then great. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Most of the original sources are 19th c so would be copyright expired even if they were originally copyright. My legal understanding is that I (in UK) must comply with UK copyright law and US copyright law is a red herring in relation to UK images. Those images based on 20th century images were deliberately distorted to a greater degree... but everyone seems to be saying that they need to be more distorted?! Art is not an area where one can set a defined parameter and say "ok you have distorted it enough".. but CRITICALLY the British copyright law also considers artistic intention. I truly cannot see why any of my images based on 19th century sources would EVER raise an issue in UK copyright law, which is the legal jurisdiction covering both "original source" and my work. Showing that copyright has expired (proving a negative) can only be demonstrated in the dates of the original photographs, which I say are generally 100 years plus in age/--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: What do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not consistent that "I (in UK) must comply with UK copyright law and US copyright law is a red herring in relation to UK images". If you were in the US, you would have to comply with US copyright law in all things, including UK images, so US copyright law is not a red herring. Most of us here don't live in the UK, and the Wikimedia Foundation is founded in the US, so it has to comply with US law. One can show that (UK) copyright has expired if you know the author, or can establish that the author was anonymous and the work was published more than 70 years ago. US law says that works published before 1923 are public domain, and there's a rough consensus that works that are 120 years old, if more information about the author can not be found, can be assumed to be in the public domain. So it's generally the 20th century photos that are a concern here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Reply to ping.
  1. Yes, these are derived works so DW applies, so both the work in creating the derivative plus the original attributions should be given and the copyright of the original is likely to always persist in the derivative. Carl's essay above boils down to this plain fact.
  2. If the underlying work is public domain, that's fine. However there has yet to be a RFC for the 120 year rule mentioned so whether that is relevant is uncertain.
  3. This thread is too long.
--Fæ (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

License review

Hi, To avoid issues like this one (it seems all Wellcome Images are concerned), we need to systematically license review ALL files from an external source published under a free license. For mass uploads, the review can be do with a bot, so it doesn't add any manual work. Otherwise, we end up with files with no evidence of a free license publication. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In the example a bot checked the license before upload. A second script doing exactly the same thing adds no more verification. If arbitrary choices by a others had not stopped me, I would have added license review templates with Faebot. Linkrot is neither a reason to delete files, nor is it a reason to doubt every upload. Arbitrary bureaucracy adds no value. --Fæ (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Fæ: I know that the license was checked before uploading (that's the minimum requirement). Yes, a license review would add more information. It is useful for reusers, and for contributors who curate files here. If the information is not available in the file description, one has to dig into history of the project to check why there is a free license. Not good. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
For those images on the new website, Faebot is adding the official short link to image pages. In addition this dates the verified link and adds the verified copyright license. There may be glitches, however any changes will be on the project page linked in every edit comment. See example --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
we could use an internet archive bot. i see a lot of source link rot in the old uploads. but reviewing experienced uploader's licenses or low risk items seems like make-work. need to triage by risk and work the higher. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's important to do licence reviews. A couple of years ago, I started checking Flickr images on English Wikipedia (where there's no licence reviewing process), hoping to be able to move many of them to Commons for review. It turned out that many of the files were listed under unfree licences on Flickr or had been deleted from Flickr, so I had to nominate a lot of the files for deletion as there was no evidence that the files ever were available under a free licence. In many cases, the uploader had chosen an obviously wrong licence version number, for example 2.5 or 3.0 instead of 2.0. If the licences had been reviewed when the files were uploaded, some of the files could probably have been kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this license compatible with Wikimedia Commons?

I found this page while looking at this image (Museum treasure - No.16296), strangely enough the English "small" license description reads "Images can be modified and be used for commercial purposes without fee under the license.", can I import images from Yunphoto with the CC 4.0 license or is did license too restrictive for Wikimedia Commons? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Two reasons. #3 is contradictory to the release on the page (and a little confusing at that). You must not redistribute the images in any way designed for reuse does not give me much confidence in the images being under an acceptable license. Also, #5. The license isn't perpetual and irrevocable. It isn't CC by any means. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, although I don’t see #3 as a contradiction; I read it to mean that one can publish the images when incorporated into other works, but not on their own / as themselves. At any rate, I see #2 as a bigger problem for Commons (if not for reusers) because we definitely archive images without specific plans or rationales for each use. The attribution requirements also seem more onerous than those of the CC BY family, and since there are no provisions for relicensing it appears effectively non-transferable.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

PD text?

I think this book cover is not eligible to be protected and can be uploaded under PD-text. Am I right? --Mhhossein talk 06:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  Comment There is a background image which has probably a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yann: Which background? --Mhhossein talk 07:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The background is not so simple. I don't know if it is a photo or computer-generated, and if that would change the copyright status. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the question would be that background texture. If it was a quick change with a graphics computer program, probably not enough to really add a copyright, but if someone worked on the texture by hand to just get the right "look", that could be copyrightable. Just the text and the colors would be fine, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I tried to find some visually similar files. The work in question does not seem to be that complex and/or creative.--Mhhossein talk 14:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
If there's a difference between a "quick change" and "working on the texture by hand" then it sounds very much as if the court is using the sweat of the brow doctrine, which has been rejected in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't usually disagree with Carl, but I find it hard to believe, even if the designer did some touch-up to get just the right look, that the USCO would grant a copyright. However, that's not a very strong doubt, so I think this does not pass our test of there being no significant doubt about its status. I don't think we can keep it..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Dutch Marine Corps logo?

Hi, I've scanned the logo of the Dutch Marine Corps from a 1978 marine corps manual. The logo itself is already uploaded to wikipedia here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Embleemkorpsmariniers.png

But my version is much clearer due to being a scan. There is no copyright on Dutch government works unless explicitly stated so, and this manual does not explicitly state so. Under what license do I upload the logo?

Thank you, Thom430 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thom430: about copyright on Dutch government works, the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-NL-Gov/en says otherwise due to the no-derivative clause. More recent government websites (e.g. https://www.defensie.nl/copyright) have started using CC0, but that is only applicable to the content of said website, not to a 1978 booklet. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: Okay, I see, so what does that mean for my scan? Can I upload it, and if so, under what license? Thom430 (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Thom430: You can, but you may not.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Thom430 and HyperGaruda: FYI, I tagged that file as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected about the actual reason why PD-NL-Gov is not a valid license anymore: derivatives are allowed, but having reproductions appear in a collection (like Commons) will always be the exclusive right of the author. Nonetheless, the answer is still no, you may not upload your scan, at least not until 2048 or - if the author is known - until 70 years after the author's death. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

NASA, ESA and STScI licensing tags

I've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole about space agency licensing while researching the copyright on a incorrectly deleted image. Here is my summary of some of the templates involved.

  • {{PD-USGov-NASA}} – For sole works of NASA. Provides some advice about Hubble Space Telescope images, but fails to adequately explain what the copyright status of an image is if it is not explicitly produced by STScI.
  • {{PD-Hubble}} – Contradicts itself as to whether the work is that of NASA and ESA, or that of STScI. I believe several classes of images are having this tag applied and they need to be split, e.g. File:Hubble Spies Jupiter Eclipses.jpg which displays {{PD-Hubble}} implying authorship by even through the original author seems to be listed as someone from the University of Arizona.
  • {{ESA-Hubble}} – Contains an extensive list of extra conditions, some of which contradict the CC licence, however it still implies that the CC licence is in force. This places our reusers at risk, and should be clarified.

These templates are confusing, and I'm seeking some expert assistance in clearing this up. TheDragonFire (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I can completely answer, but... originally, Hubble photos were generally PD if they were by NASA or ESA. Thus, the PD-Hubble template, which applied for both (since PD-USGov-NASA obviously would not work for ESA). For ESA images, that stopped applying in 2009. Thereafter, the ESA released their images under a CC-BY license. Thus, the ESA-Hubble tag, because they are not PD (like the first tag) but rather freely licensed. None of the conditions contradict a CC license. They request some things, but they are not requirements. They mention trademark and publicity rights issues as well, neither of which affect copyright. I suppose these days there isn't much difference between PD-Hubble and PD-USGov-NASA but it was present on many files uploaded before 2009 and those may not be purely NASA. The PD-Hubble tag is a bit more topic-specific, and includes the reasoning why STScI credits are still PD even if not necessarily authored by the US Government (the contract with NASA specifies that status). So, it would be preferable to not use PD-USGov-NASA for Hubble images at all. As always, there may well be issues with individual images with that tag. The problem image you note was originally uploaded in 2004 as PD-USGov-NASA, then the tag was changed. By the wording of the website terms, that probably does not qualify for the license. I suspect there was less scrutiny of such things 14 years ago. It's possible that the University of Arizona is fine with the license, but that should be confirmed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I agree with most of that assessment, but I'm still concerned that {{PD-Hubble}} is terribly unclear. The first and second paragraphs contradict themselves, and either the template needs to be split into two, or it needs to be clarified that it is used for two different classes of images, i.e those created by NASA and ESA and those created for NASA by Space Telescope Science Institute under Contract NAS5-26555.
I've reread the licence linked from {{ESA-Hubble}} in parallel with the relevant CC licence. Running section by section:
  • they exercise their Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i) right to dictate a reasonable manner of attribution;
  • they repeat in substance Section 2(a)(6) regarding no endorsement;
  • they make a product archival request not covered by the licence;
  • they repeat in substance Section 2(b)(1) regarding personality rights;
  • they repeat in substance Section 3(a)(1)(C) regarding identification of modifications.
I'm now reasonably satisfied that each of these additional conditions imposed are either exercising a right conferred by the licence, or duplicating in substance a term of the licence, except for the product archival provision, which I'm a little concerned about. A "request" under the heading "conditions" seems like it could be construed to be binding, but I'm happy to try and dig up some US case law on the matter. TheDragonFire (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
We have generally held that requests to be notified are OK, but requirements to be notified are not. Pretty sure that has come up with custom licenses or conditions here; changing to "request" has gotten them accepted. It doesn't say "must" or anything like that. They are asking for a copy. If it was a requirement, yes it would be non-free. If you can find any case law, would be interested. As for PD-Hubble, yeah the first paragraph should probably be "by NASA (and/or ESA before 2009)" or something like that. Or should be more explicit that it was by NASA/ESA/STScl before 2009, or NASA/STScl after 2009. I think the tag is mostly for images which appear on hubblesite.org. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Community artwork

Can Commons accept File:Jessica-Miller.jpg as licensed or does it need OTRS verification per c:COM:FOP#United States? This looks like a street art mural painted on someone's garage door. While I can see how the photo itself is a COM:DW, I am wondering about the underlying work depicted. Are murals, etc. like this to be considered to be public artworks even if the underlying physical structure they are painted on such as a building, etc., is not really something eligible for copyright protection or is the mural, etc. considered to be somehow an "extension" of the building design/exterior paint scheme in some way? I believe it's most likely a case of the former, but just want some other opinions. FWIW, the uploader claims to "have a signed letter from Clarion Alley Mural Project" which grants them the rights for use of the murals in this photograph", but I'm not sure if (1) that is something which is actually needed and (2) needs to be verified by OTRS if needed. Moreover, the permission (at least as described) might be too limited for Commons in that it only seems to give the right to use the murals to the photographer for their photograph, but not for any possible users or uses.

The same also applies to File:Clarion Alley Mural Project.jpg, File:Clarion Alley Mural Project, 2002 Block Party.jpg, File:"Tax The Rich" mural by Megan Wilson on Clarion Alley San Francisco.jpg, and File:CAMP 2012.jpg uploaded by Ponderosa Templeton as well as File:Mural on Clarion Alley 1.JPG uploaded by Plateaueatplau. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a mural on a building is copyrightable in the US and not subject to FOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Prosfilaes. Do you think tagging these with {{Npd}} is sufficient or should they be discussed at COM:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I emailed the Project about this. George Ho (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that George Ho. I'm still not sure if it's the project, however, who holds the copyright on the works. It seems that there's a chance it might be the original artist, or if done on commission that it might be the owner of the building, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
If we're to wait for others to respond, then DR it is if you wish. You can use npd, but would that be fair to others? --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Could someone please tell me if this File:WSHCapslogo.png is {{PD-textlogo}} or a Non-free logo? I've started a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:WSHCapslogo.png mainly due to two concerns: (1) The SVG version (File:Washington Capitals.svg) is uploaded on Wikipedia as non-free and (2) the "L" is shaped as a hockey stick which I think is too original to be a geometric shape. Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks, Corky 20:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've commented at the deletion nomination page. It consists of simple geometric shapes as explained there. Ww2censor (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
So have I.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! Corky 21:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Curve fever pro Bild.jpg

Could someone check whether this pic was legitimately uploaded to Commons? It's the "cover picture" of a browser game. Thx in advance. --King Rk (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears not legitimate, but difficult to check. The uploader is sometimes active on German Wikipedia and seems only working on the article about this game. The best imho is to ask for clarification on their talk page. Regards, Elly (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
There's already a deletion request in progress, I asked him to comment there. Thank you. --King Rk (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: King Rk (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

PD-Art for CC-BY-SA ?

Hi, Do we have a template for a case of a faithful reproduction of CC-BY-SA licensed art work (File:Grumbach Selbstportrait Skizze.jpg)? Regards, Yann (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: I don't think we need one, the uploader appears to have released it {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, We need a template equivalent to PD-Art, but for works of art under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Is the uploader the heir?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: So therefore the heir/photographer/uploader has licensed the photo and underlying painting CC-BY-SA, and we don't need another template in this case. If a CC 2D work happens to get photographed as a faithful reproduction and the photographer doesn't want to give a free license for the photo, we don't really need that photo.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: But the photographer is a different person that the heirs. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
To OTRS volunteer: Is the ticket:2018020110012055 is valid? The article "w:de:Theo Grumbach" says that Grumbach has two children. I wonder whether his children approve the uploading; his works are still copyrighted, despite the licensing. Indeed, author+70 rule applies to his works, especially in Germany. George Ho (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@George Ho: Yes, that ticket is valid, and is from one of the artist's heirs. N.B. Yann IS an OTRS volunteer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The original artwork is CC-BY-SA (by virtue of the permission of the heir to the artwork's author), but we lack permission from the actual photographer of the CC licensed artwork, and the photograph is of German origin. Is that correct? If so, we don't currently have a template for that situation, and I think we will have to delete the photo or get a policy statement from WMF. Permit me to explain in length.

Under the US Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision a slavish photographic copy of a painting lacks originality and thus copyrightability under the US Copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting work and, in addition, add new original copyrightable authorship to that work. If we apply the logic of Bridgeman, the photo does not add any original copyrightable authorship to the underlying artwork, so a reuser in the US would only need a license for the underlying artwork (which would be CC-BY-SA in this case). So in the US the photo is CC-BY-SA. Normally Commons policy requires a work to be free in the US and the country of origin. However, we have special dispensation from the WMF for the case where the underlying artwork is public domain (WMF takes the position that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain" and have said "...we don't think it's a good idea to dignify such claims of copyright on public domain works. And, if we ever were seriously legally challenged, we would have a good internal debate about whether we'd fight such a case, and build publicity around it.") This is how we justify the existence and use of the PD-Art template, even in cases where the country of origin does not have a decision/law similar to Bridgeman. Without the statement from WMF we would need country-specific versions of PD-Art, like we have for the freedom of panorama templates.

Unfortunately, to date, the WMF has only officially extended the blanket policy to public domain works, not CC licensed works, although I suppose they might do so if someone asked. However, we could keep the photo with just our existing policies if the country of origin, like the US, does not extend copyright protection to photos of two-dimensional works. If the photograph originated in Japan we could probably create a {{Licensed-Art-Japan}} template for this situation, unfortunately per COM:PDARTREUSE it seems possible that Germany would extend copyright protection to this and similar photos, so a template like {{Licensed-Art-Germany}} probably can not be created. Thus having a free license to just the artwork does not appear to be sufficient to meet current Commons policy without a statement from WMF that extended "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain" to "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional freely licensed works of art are similarly freely licensed". —RP88 (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

RP88: I don't understand why you make a distinction (or the WMF, or anyone else for that matter). Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. does not depend on the art work copyright status, but on the fact that it is 2D. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The US (by virtue of the logic in Bridgeman) does not make a distinction. Other countries have chosen to extend copyright protection to these kinds of photos. I think it would be fine for a US organization only concerned with US reusers to host this photo and I think it would be legal for WMF to host this photo. However, Commons policy is much stricter than what is legal in the US. WMF has taken the position that they believe that every country should adopt the position that photos of 2D public domain works are public domain, and they are willing to extend their resources to make that happen. To that end, WMF has officially stated that when the photos are of two-dimensional public domain artworks, they will permit Commons to host these files, even if they are copyright violations in the country of origin. For example, the National Portrait Gallery in the UK took the position that photos of 2D PD works are not PD in the UK and threatened legal action. See en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. For whatever reason, perhaps because it hasn't previously been an issue, WMF's official position does not extend to files that are freely licensed copyrighted works in the US, but not freely licensed in the country of origin due to that country granting copyright protection to slavish photos of 2D works. As I mentioned above, we could ask WMF to change their official position from the current position of "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain" to the more expansive "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional freely licensed works of art are similarly freely licensed". —RP88 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
You say Other countries have chosen to extend copyright protection to these kinds of photos. Well, no. The UK and some other countries did. That's a big difference. I think most countries follow the Bridgeman principle, may be with a different wording. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
When I said "Other countries have chosen to extend copyright protection to these kinds of photos" I did not mean "All other", sorry if that is not clear. I don't think "most countries follow the Bridgeman principle" is a fair summary of COM:PDARTREUSE. But, to be honest, I don't think it matters how many do or do not, just that it is a country by country determination, and the photo in question would be protected in Germany as it is very likely that photographs of 2D works that are not created in a purely mechanical way are protected in Germany. —RP88 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would read the policy that closely. I think their position is that they don't want copyright claims of reproductive photography to restrict the freeness of an original. The PD-Art tag would work fine with a CC-BY license argument, I think, and would accurately represent the status in the U.S. Changing policy for this case would not help the original artist, just the photographer, who would have just as much right to something as modern photographers of modern paintings do. Does not make sense to respect one and not the other. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
In this case, we definitely have permission from the copyright holder of the artwork. We, however, lack permission from the photographer. I agree that if WMF adopted a more expansive policy we would "harm" the photographer, but doing so would do no more harm than we did to NPG and their photographers. As I said, I think the Bridgeman logic obviously applies to either the case, so it is just a matter of what the WMF is willing to defend. Since WMF mentioned "publicity" in their statement they may have been considering more than just legal arguments when they authored their policy about what they would permit. We should not just assume that the WMF is willing to extend their policy, particularly since it would be very easy to just ask them to do so rather than just assume that is what they intended. —RP88 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Carl and Yann, as I don't see why a photo of a 2D work in PD would be considered here as exempted of copyright while a photo of a 2D work not yet in PD should have a special protection. From a photographic point of view there is absolutely not any single additional creativity regardless that the photo show a work in PD or not in PD. It is true that the WMF position and our policy is directly based from the case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and our policy takes back the exact outline, however it is very reasonable to think that the result could have been similar if the works were copyrightable en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. : "...the only similarity between the two works was an uncopyrightable element: the public domain material itself.", in our case the element (the painting) is copyrightable, however we have a permission. Therefore I am clearly 1/in favour to keep the files (furthermore I'm pretty sure that we have dozen, if not hundred, of similar other cases in Wikimedia Commons) 2/to create a similar template as the PD-Art tag with a wording a bit modified (as we don't talk about PD works) and that accept CC-BY licenses (or other) as arguments. However I also agree with RP88 above "We should not just assume that the WMF is willing to extend their policy, particularly since it would be very easy to just ask them to do so rather than just assume that is what they intended". Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:FAL

Why is Template:FAL treated as one version of the FAL? Why not Template:FAL1.1, Template:FAL1.2, and Template:FAL1.3? The Licence Art Libre has three versions. What if a copyright holder doesn't want to use FAL1.3, which is considered compatible with CC BY-SA 4.0? George Ho (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: You are welcome to draft such templates.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Created the version-only templates. George Ho (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@George Ho: The templates look good in English, now for the docs and translations...   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I created the /doc pages, but I don't know the translations. George Ho (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
While it is fine to have version specific instances of the FAL template, we should not lead licensors to believe that they can avoid FAL 1.3 by specifying an older FAL license. All versions of the Free Art License gives licensees the option to comply with a later version of the FAL, regardless of whether the work has been adapted, so a copyright holder who licensed his work under FAL 1.1 can't prevent a reuser from electing to use the work under the terms of FAL 1.3, which in turn gives the reuser the option of using the work under CC BY-SA 4.0. —RP88 (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It may be possible, especially by reading the terms in various versions, but what about the "no sub-licensing" rule in all versions? Would it forbid a reuser from using the compatible license, CC BY-SA 4.0, for an FAL material, which the third-party would later use? Would re-licensing the FAL content under CC-BY-SA 4.0 be sub-licensing? Or maybe I've misinterpreted the terms or something? George Ho (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Sub-licensing is a different concept in IP law. If I have permission to sublicense a work, I can grant some or all of the rights granted to me by the original author to a sublicensee (i.e. the sublicensee gets the rights to the original work from me under a license of my choosing, although I may have contractual obligations with the original author that determine the scope and terms of the sublicense). Without permission to sublicense a work, reusers of a work that is a derivative of a FAL-licensed work get all their rights to those original portions directly from the original author (in this case, under the terms of the FAL). The FAL gives licensees the option to comply with a later version of the FAL, regardless of whether the work has been adapted. CC-BY-SA-2.0 and later also allows licensees to comply with the conditions of future versions of CC-BY-SA, but only if that version was applied to an adaptation of the work. The result of a legal analysis by Creative Commons determined that when someone adapts a CC-BY-SA work and applies FAL to their contributions, both licenses apply and downstream users must find a way to comply with both licenses. However, in the case of version 4.0 of CC-BY-SA, because of Section 2(a)(5)(B), anyone who receives the adapted material downstream can comply with both CC-BY-SA-4.0 and FAL by just complying with FAL. When someone adapts a FAL work and applies CC-BY-SA-4.0 to their contributions, the the terms and conditions of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license apply to the entire work, including those elements originally licensed under the FAL (as meeting CC-BY-SA-4.0's terms also meets FAL 1.3 terms by virtual of the compatible license clause in section 2.3). In either case, both the original and adaptor authors must be attributed. —RP88 (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Sub-licensing a work licensed under a free public license would be meaningless - who needs a sub-license if the original license would suffice? Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Permission from the original artist for releasing a DW

Suppose there is a copyrighted sculpture made by a living artist. Another person made a derivative photo—such as this—and wants to host it on Commons. Can permission from the sculptor release the derivative work under a free license?

Look at this user_talk, please. The uploader and presumed photographer claims that obtained such permission. I am not qualified to provide instructions for this case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The uploader must have a written permission and should follow instructions on Commons:OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I and the sculptor were able to contact each other and have been considering the licensing and shrinking the size. George Ho (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, perfect! --Kamillenteefee (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
With pleasure. Nevertheless, the sculptor and I are still working on the licensing, and the sculptor is unsure about whether to use CC BY-SA. George Ho (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Update: the licensing has changed to one non-free and the other free (yet, well, more impractical) licenses. Also, the sculptor has sent email to them. George Ho (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw an addition to a link to a mirror site RegioWiki.at, which is transcluding this image from Wikimedia Commons but tells a reader to read further at Wikimedia Commons. Its local description is nonexistent, and there is no licensing information. Is this allowed? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Z84 01.jpg

Can Commons keep this file as licensed? It doesn't appear to be a photo whch the uploader took and then uploaded to Commons; rather, it looks more like something downloaded from somehwere online and then uploaded to Commons. There's no EXIF data provided and the source is given as "entreprise star bonifaccio" which might be en: Star Bonifacio Echeverria. The file actually seems to be an upload of here which is a page in the manual issued by the manufacturer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Have put it up for speedy delete. P.g.champion (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look P.g.champion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can upload a photo

The licensing information of a photo I want to upload says: "Rights-Managed : Editorial: Website inc social media ; Repeated use ; Up to 2 years" I'm not exactly sure what license that'd be listed under if I were to upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cather2021 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry: that licence is much too limited to be considered free here, because it restricts both the usage of the photo and the duration. Please see the licensing policy for what‘s acceptable.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:PD-GermanGov

In the course of a recent undeletion request I noticed that already three years ago I had come across an inconsistency in the wording of this template (see talk page). The current template limits official government works of Germany to the federal and state level of administration. The relevant law, however, does not distinguish between such administrative divisions but only mentions the types of works that are to be considered PD. Since there was no reply to my initial post I thought I should present the issue here. De728631 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we take pictures of six historic photos displayed by the government agencie?

This question was originally raised here: [13]. I think that I can not ask multiple questions in the same topic, so I separately to ask about copyright violations. My question is:

Can someone answer that question? Because Eric Deng saw that I use "English" nominate his photo for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kukuan Hydropower Plant01.jpg. He is worried that I have bad intentions. I explained to him in Chinese why I nominate his photo, and why I think it is copyright violations. But he think that my insistence on deleting the photo is bad intention. Therefore, I don't know if I'm doing anything wrong.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yearuk

The user Yearuk seems to have some uploads without metadata and possibly dubious copyright status, including File:CP-chicago.jpg, File:Mariosilvapsuv.jpg, File:Mango lesionado.jpg, File:ZURDA KONDUCTA.jpg and File:Diosdado en zurda konducta.jpg. Already one of their uploads (File:HCP-chicago.jpg) has been deleted.--Jamez42 (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: All tagged, thanks for the report.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Ajfc nfl logo.png

No indication given on the source website that this has been released under a "cc-by-sa2 license, but it's probably simple enough for {{PD-logo}} or some other PD license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  Done - Alexis Jazz 08:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Alexis Jazz. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Would appreciate help

Can someone help me to figure out whether this image of Pippa Strachey (1872–1968, notable as a suffragist) is free, and if so what the right tag is? The image was taken c. 1900, presumably in the UK, author unknown, publication dates unknown. SarahSV (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: That really depends on when it was published. If the purchase year of 1979 is the publication year then we might have a problem per COM:AW#United Kingdom. Copyright won't expire for 70 years after the publication date if it was published after 1968. Do you have any other information on this image? Where it came from? Was it in any other publication before this? --Majora (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been digging. The entire collection was purchased from the Strachey Trust Collection in 1979. From what I can tell a lot of these images were personal family photographs. I'm not sure these would count as published and if they weren't published until they were purchased by NPG then there might be an issue there. I'll dig around some more but finding additional leads is starting to become more difficult. --Majora (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it'd be PD in the UK. Not sure what the significance of 1968 is, but photos used to be 50 years from creation in the UK. So that would have become PD in the 1950s it sounds like. The EU extensions would have possibly applied, as that is 70 years from publication (or more accurately "making available to the public"), but only if so published within 70 years of creation. If not published in that time, then the term is 70 years from creation, which has also passed. The four bullet points at the bottom of COM:AW#United Kingdom do not apply for photographs created before 1957. There could be a 25 year publication right, but that may have passed as well by this point. The U.S. status is fuzzier if never published. But if published in 1979, and there was no copyright notice, don't think the U.S. would have copyright either. By old U.S. rules, the transaction between the photographer and the family may have constituted publication, though by old UK rules a commissioned work was owned by the commissioning party I think, so it could have been unpublished -- it's just that the published status did not matter for copyright for photographs then. It does sound like the most likely scenario is that they were not made available to the public until 1979, but it would be PD in the UK under that scenario. The U.S. status is a bit more tortured on what constitutes publication in this case, but it seems most likely it is either PD-1923, or PD-US-1978-89 and PD-1996. Not sure I see a solid reason to delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: I never know what's meant by "published" in this context. Does it mean "published with the consent of the copyright holder"? If so, what does it mean when the author is unknown? SarahSV (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
"For publication to have occurred, the work must be issued with the authorization of the copyright owner" (Peter B. Hirtle). SarahSV (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, for works where publication matters, it is only the copyright author that can authorize publication. So somebody stealing a negative then publishing the photo would not change the copyright status, etc. Each country can have nuances on "publication" as well. For the UK, if we presume the photo was commissioned from a photographer, the commissioning party would own the copyright per old UK law, allowing it to remain unpublished. And thus, by sale to the NPG, they would have authorized publication there (or "making available to the public", which is less stringent than "publication", and is the operative part for UK law). However, for photographs in particular, the term used to be based on date of creation so it did not matter. Following the EU directives, publication can matter -- but it would seem that 1979 would be the last possible date for that. I really don't see a significant doubt here. If it was not made available to the public before 1979, it had become PD by then even by the retroactive rules. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I must have misread the COM:AW section on the United Kingdom. It is a tad confusing as to what counts but after rereading it this is what I've gotten. The photo was taken prior to 1 June 1957 and then "published" when the NPG bought the collection in 1979. But, according to AW (now that I have reread it) the copyright would have expired 70 years after creation. Which would have been 1970 (ish). Since it was not published during the copyright period, it missed it by 9 years, then the copyright has expired and you are good to go. So I'm in agreement with Carl here. It would look like the image is fine. The problem is the {{PD-UK-unknown}} template doesn't seem to include this instance. So I'm not quite sure what licensing template you should use. --Majora (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Carl and Majora, thank you for this information. The problem I have constantly is finding the right template. For example, if the Hirtle chart says something is out of copyright "95 years after publication date" or "70 years after the death of author" in the United States, the corresponding templates still ask for a separate American one. The templates and copyright law/Hirtle chart seem out of sink. SarahSV (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
If COM:HIRTLE states that the United States copyright expires 95 years after publication, then the American template is {{PD-1923}}. If you know the author's death year, consider using {{PD-old-auto-1923|year of death}} instead as this also includes information about the copyright status in other countries.
If COM:HIRTLE states that the United States copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author or 120 years after the work was created, then the American template is {{PD-US-unpublished}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Stefan2, {{PD-US-unpublished}} is for unpublished. What about works published in the US that are, according to Hirtle, out of copyright 70 years after the death of author? SarahSV (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Stefan, I can't use {{PD-US-unpublished}} for this image of Pippa Strachey because it was taken in 1900 (unknown author, publication unknown prior to NPG publishing it online, almost certainly after 2003)? SarahSV (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

According to COM:HIRTLE, there are several situations where the US copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author, but in all situations apart from the one mentioned in {{PD-US-unpublished}}, the author hasn't been dead for 70 years yet. Apart from {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-US-unpublished}}, there are also situations where the United States copyright tag is {{PD-1996}} or {{PD-URAA-Simul}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Stefan, do you have any suggestions for this image of Pippa Strachey? Taken 1900 in the UK, author unknown, first publication date unknown. SarahSV (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Determining U.S. "publication" can get very tangled in a situation like this. I think a photographer selling copies to a family would normally constitute U.S. publication immediately, which would be PD-1923. But if they follow UK law (and how far)?, maybe they could still be unpublished. But if then published in 1979, probably without a copyright notice, they would become PD then, which would be PD-US-1979-89 and PD-1996. Any other situation gets into extreme theoretical situations, not enough to delete. I could see going with a combination of PD-UK-unknown and PD-1996. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
{{PD-1996}} says "was first published before 1 March 1989", so that won't work. SarahSV (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Didn't 1979 happen before 1989? Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Carl, I don't follow. We don't know when or whether the image was published before the National Portrait Gallery placed it on their website. They purchased it in 1979. Are you saying purchase counts as publication because we should assume that they put it on display then? That would be stretching things, in my view. SarahSV (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi SarahSV, Carl says above the transaction between the photographer and the family may have constituted publication. In that time, only professionals owned a camera, so yes, it can be considered "published". Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yann, thank you. I've gone ahead and uploaded it with that template (File:Pippa Strachey, c. 1900.jpg).

Would you mind checking the other images of her? They are File:Philippa Strachey in 1921 (cropped).jpg (source), and File:Pippa Strachey by John Thomson (1886).png (source).

The former was questioned recently during a peer review, which is what led me to upload the others. SarahSV (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I added {{PD-1996}} for the first, and changed it to {{PD-old-70-1923}} for the others. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Yann, thank you. How do we know that they were published or registered before 1923? I'm asking this not to challenge you, by the way, but because I want to learn how to use these templates. SarahSV (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, this is taking time to sink in. It's because "the transaction between the photographer and the family may have constituted publication" because only professionals owned cameras in those days. Got it, thank you. SarahSV (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@SarahSV -- In the U.S., selling copies was generally held to be "general publication" (which would start the federal copyright clock), as opposed to "limited publication" which would not. Unfortunately the courts had to come up with a definition of publication since the law did not have one. Nimmer's definition (for before 1978) defined publication as "when by consent of the copyright owner, the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur." Other courts defined "limited publication" as publication to a limited set of people, for a limited purpose, and no right of further distribution. All three of those parts needed to be true for limited publication. For example, giving a publisher a copy of a book manuscript to see if they are interested would be limited publication. The courts were more careful when it comes to individual works of art like paintings, as offers for sale were usually not publication. To me, a photographer would have made a print (copy) of the negative, and sold that or several copies. Distribution was to a limited set of people in that case (the commissioning party), but not for a limited purpose, and no limits of further distribution -- that does not seem like limited publication to me. Now it could be argued that the photographer could sell the common-law copyright (the right to publish) instead, and that the commissioning party would then own copyright to an unpublished work along with its copies. That may have been the way UK law worked at the time, but US courts were divided. These days, the photographer definitely retains the copyright and there is no implied transfer without a written contract. Deciding which law would apply for purposes of U.S. publication gets mind-numbing to me (without good precedents) and I don't think it's worth deleting over. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

proposed solution for images originated in USSR intended for use on the Ukrainian and English versions of Wikipedia

Please clarify the following situation:

1) fact: creators of images originated in the former USSR has the same legal protection in all countries which became independent after USSR official dissolution in 1991. The issue is specified in the Circular 38a from the U.S. Copyright Office. It was discussed in details: Template talk:PD-Soviet. 2) intention: to use the image originated in the former USSR published before January 1, 1951 with known author who died before that date. The intention to use only on the Ukrainian and English versions of Wikipedia. Therefore, the requirement for the image to be in PD in Ukraine/US. 3) can the template {{PD-Ukraine}} be used with the following mandatory clarification: this file is for the use on the English and Ukrainian versions of Wikipedia, the copyright status in other jurisdictions (e.g. Russian Federation) is not known. Please use this image on Ukrainian and English versions of Wikipedia.

Why important? If solved, it would greatly simplify the access to the important historical images originated in USSR from 1920s and 1930s.

Thanks for clarification.--Armenius vambery (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:International copyright quick reference guide #Public domain table implies that if a document originates from Russia and is copyrighted in the Russian Federation, then it may not be uploaded to Commons. Do not think that the site should alter the general country-of-origin policy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Unclear: There were no Russia or Ukraine legally prior to 1991. So the image could originate in Russian Empire prior to 1917, Russian SFSR from 1918 to 1922 and USSR (Soviet Union) from 1922 to 1991. All these legal entities include most (but not all) geographies of present day Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, the images started to originate from Russia (legally Russian Federation) only after 1991.--Armenius vambery (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Except for Crimea and ignoring the Nazi invasion, the Russia–Ukraine border is rather stable from 1924. In the Soviet Union of after that, Russia and Ukraine existed continuously. And are we discussing the Imperial age, indeed? On the other hand, it is not always easy to tell where exactly did historical (incl. Soviet) documents originate. But again, if a document unambiguously came from Russia and is copyrighted in the Russian Federation, then it certainly is not free for us. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The question is simple: what tag the Ukrainian contributor should use for Wikipedia article to illustrate the events in USSR in 1920s - 30s for Ukrainian and English language pages for PD images?--Armenius vambery (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair use.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
If Soviet photos are considered simultaneously published in all successor nations, the "country of origin" gets a bit odd (even nonsensical) per the Berne Convention definition (Article 5(4)), and could be Ukraine (or other countries) depending on the situation. The U.S. would probably use Russia in most cases for the URAA though. Many images from that era may still be under copyright, especially if there was a known author. But anonymous (i.e. known to have been published anonymously, not that the author has been lost) images before 1946 become arguable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that the main problem with the Soviet Union under United States law is that the URAA date for some successor states is 1 January 1996 whereas it is a later date for some of the other successor states and two of the successor states have not even had their URAA dates yet. The copyright status is also tricky under EU law. The rule of the shorter term does not apply if the author was a citizen of the European Union. 3 out of 15 Soviet successor states are part of the European Union, so how do you determine if the author was a citizen of the European Union? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Which two? Looking at w:Post-Soviet states and US Copyright Office's "Circular 38A: International Copyright Relations of the United States", all 15 have had their URAA dates, with Turkmenistan finishing it up, signing the Berne Convention on May 29, 2016.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought there were two countries left, but maybe Turkmenistan was the last one. I had missed the Berne Convention signature in 2016. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The proposed solution looks like this:

File:Samsonov Rykov Bukharin.jpg

ALL need solution: in simple words clear "ready to use algorithm".--Armenius vambery (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

what if we use both countries tags:File:Mikhail Frunze Red Army Bukhara offensive.jpg any objections?--Armenius vambery (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If both tags can clearly demonstrate that the file is in the public domain, then one of them is redundant. If one of them shows significant doubts that the image is PD in the [part of] country of origin, the second is senseless – the file must be deleted per COM:PCP. Sealle (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
ok. Fine, I will leave one PD-UA: the work was published in USSR (specifically Ukrainian SSR). But what is the the point to change my tag PD-UA to PD-RU? For example:File:Voroshilov Budyonny Frunze Bukharin.jpg?--Armenius vambery (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Er, the "restrictions on where the work may be used" are for terms of licenses, not PD status. Since the Soviet Union is not a country any longer, not sure that it can still be the "country of origin". If a work is deemed "simultaneously published" in all of the current-day countries which made up the former USSR, then you would follow the definition in the Berne Convention linked above, which would allow for countries other than Russia to be the Berne country of origin today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. In fact the link provided exactly addresses our discussion in 4a. "The country of origin shall be considered...in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection." Wehave discussed and there is no doubt that UA offers shorter protection (4 years difference) than RU. --Armenius vambery (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Good that finally the solution is found. --Armenius vambery (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Main question - are we looking solution for UK-Wikipedia, or EN-Wikipedia, or Commons? The situation is different for all three cases: UK-WP can use (but do not use), EN-WP can use and uses principle "must be PD in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed". Commnos can not.
  • Is there any opinions in reliable sources on thesis "Work published in USSR was published in all 6-15 republics"? I do not know such sources.
    1. De jure USSR was like modern EU. De jure each of 6-15 republics was sovereign enough. Copyright law (as part of Civil law) was part of republican law. USSR defined basic copyright principles, then republics used them with some variations. Similarly to EU and its mambers: EU defines Enforcement Directives, and EU-states adapt them, and there is no thesis "Work published in EU was published in all 12-28 states".
    2. Each of 12 (with the exception of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which do not consider themselves as part of the USSR) copyright laws of post-Soviet states has clearly emphasized that it protects works (1) published on territory of specific republic (each of 12 republics recognize itself as legal successor of specific SSR, the RF is new name of the RSFSR, Ukraine is new name for the UkSSR, and etc.), not territory of USSR in all, (2) published by republican citizen anywhere, (3) or by means of international treaties. Only principle (1) - territorial principle (and further identification of country of origin) - is important for our purposes.
    3. The Russian copyright law has clearly emphasized usage of rule of the shorter term. en:Worker and Kolkhoz Woman will be protected by 70 years term in RF, because it was presented in France, despite Mukhina had been working during the GPW, and most other of her works will be protected by 74 years term. There are several Russian and Ukrainian court decisions on definition of copyright term (the most known is case of en:Alexander Belyaev), some of them clearly use rule of the shorter term, none of them postulate "Work was published in USSR, so lets use 50 years term from Belarus or Kazakhstan copyright law".
  • TLDR - we need opinions in reliable sources (above all from post-Soviet republics), not users' opinions. See for example Template:PD-RusEmpire - there are many reliable sources that RF is not RE. RF is not RE by territorial principle, but there is possibility that RE-citizen is RF-citizen by citizenship principle - fortunately, it is unimportant for wikipedia/commons purposes. Alex Spade (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
All countries (formerly Soviet republics) after the dissolution of Soviet Union were considered the legal successors of the USSR in terms of copyright and were retroactively considered members of the UCC with an adherence date of May 27, 1973. The issue is addressed by Circular 38a from the U.S. Copyright Office. Since the work is deemed "simultaneously published" in all of the current-day countries which made up the former USSR, then we follow the definition in the Berne Convention: "The country of origin shall be considered in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection." If we compare the current Russian and Ukrainian IP protections: Russia grants longer protection than Ukraine, and the difference is 4 years. Therefore, if we choose between Russia and Ukraine, for the country of origin, related to the works published in USSR, it is Ukraine.--Armenius vambery (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that User:Armenius vambery reverted my removal of a clearly false license claiming that the matter is solved ([14]). The image has whatsoever relation to Ukraine, it was taken in Moscow and published in Moscow, and the photographer was working for the Russian magazine.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see, they restored the false license for the second time [15]. One more revert will result in a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The work was published in the Soviet Union (therefore simultaneously published in all present day countries) and photographer contributed for the Soviet magazine. Both Russia (legally Russian Federation) and Ukraine appeared in 1991. Ymblanter intentionally tries to provoke confrontation, please read the discussion.--Armenius vambery (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I did read the discussion. You are the only user in this discussion who advocates this point of view. This is ok, but license fraud is clearly not ok. Replacing a valid license with an invalid one is not ok and is blockable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
You are Sealle under another name. You better get busy to contribute. I will report you under both names.--Armenius vambery (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I am obviously not Sealle. And the next time I develop interest in your opinion on what I should do I will ask you. Until then would you please mind your own business.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I understand your PoV. You are not the first - this is enough old idea: brilliant for someone but totally undeveloped for Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. There is not any evidence that such PoV supported by Russian and/or Ukraine courts or jurists. Opinions from others countries (USA, UK, or any other) are secondary - jurisprudence is very country-specific study compared to physics or math: opinion of Russian physicist is equal to opinion of American physicist in generally, but opinion of Russian jurist on Russian law is higher than opinion of American jurist on Russian law in generally (because Russian jurist definitely know better Russian language (especially juridical language), Soviet/Russia history (especially law history), etc.). Moreover, Circular 38a in notes 4 and 6 on page 17 (there is no any other mentions of USSR of Soviet in it) describes other USA and post-Soviet republics interactions of copyright laws - it says nothing about thesis "Work published in USSR was published in all 6-15 republics", it is clearly says that each of 12 post-Soviet republics has signed UCC again separately (or confirm its status) and also each of them has signed additional bilateral agreement with USA separately. For Berne Convention RSFSR/Russia, UkSSR/Ukraine, BSSR/Belarus and other republics are CoO, not USSR - this thesis is supported by real court decisions. Again, see case of en:Alexander Belyaev - if your PoV is right, the court was not able to prolong copyright term of Belyaev's works, if they were published in USSR (from your PoV - in all 15/16 republics simultaneously). Alex Spade (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you focus on the solution, not problems? I want to find the image to illustrate the point on Wikipedia, found the relevant image, checked the status in my country (Ukraine) and in US, uploaded and applied the relevant tag. As to my knowledge, PD Ukraine, has no restrictions to be used in any country of the former USSR. You have time to change my tags from PD Ukraine to PD Russia and read about the Belyaev case (no relevance to the current discussion), but do not have time to use your great knowledge to find the good images (from reliable sources which allow to verify time and place as well as in PD) for English language pages of Ivar Smilga, Yakov Blumkin, Karl Radek, Lazar Kaganovich and Vasiliy Ulrikh. These are major political figures from 20s, apparently possible to find the images in PD, and now noone cares. But as soon as I do the job, you will find plenty of time to change my tags.--Armenius vambery (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
checked the status in US - No, you have not. There are no USA sources from you which are supported thesis "Work published in USSR was published in all 6-15 republics"
checked the status in my country (Ukraine) - This is unimportant for Commons. It can be important for UK-wikipedia, but it is not - because UK-WP can use, but do not use, principle "must be PD in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed"
Ukraine has used rule of shorter term indeed. If UK-wiki servers have been placed in Ukraine only - PD-Ukraine/PD-UA-exempt (and some templates with shorter term) will be enough for any files from all of the Word. But on any wikipedia and commons we must use US law as well, and it does not support thesis "Work published in USSR was published in all 6-15 republics" in known sources.
The easiest solution is fair use concept, mentioned by Ymblanter on 21:02, 24 March 2018. Both UK-wiki and EN-wiki allow it. But you have been ignoring it persistently.
You have time - Commons users have time to change tags indeed and have tried to help you to retag some of your files by correct tags suitable for Commons with no doubt - but you have started edit wars and even personal attacks. Some of your files can not be placed on Commons by any way - sad but true - but at the same time both UK-wiki and EN-wiki allow fair use concept. Alex Spade (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if someone is offended. Could you please look at this file File:Voroshilov Budyonny Frunze Bukharin.jpg. What is wrong in PD Ukraine, which was changed by Sealle to PD Russia? --Armenius vambery (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
It is unimportant that photowork was created on UkSSR territory. It is important that journal with photowork had been publishing on RFSFR territory, not on UkSSR territory. Alex Spade (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
When it comes to the U.S., the URAA would have restored works in 1996. The URAA concept of "source country" is similar to "country of origin", but it's much more common-sense when it comes to simultaneous publication. It is the country of first publication, but even 1 day different means it would not be simultaneous (whereas the Berne Convention states anything within 30 days of first publication is simultaneous). Secondly, when it is simultaneous for the URAA, likely the situation in many of theses cases, it is the country with the "greatest contacts" with the work. So it could matter exactly where published, who the author was, etc. In most cases, the URAA "source country" will probably be Russia. However, in 1996 most all of those countries (including Russia) were 50pma, so it's often 1946 that is something of a dividing line. Anonymous works published before then were likely not restored, regardless if they became re-copyrighted when Russia retroactively extended copyright to 70pma. If a work conforms to {{PD-Russia}} as well, that is often preferable. The U.S. status would indeed not depend on Berne country of origin at all, so that is a separate matter. If first published in the RSFSR, or maybe at least by an author from the RSFSR, the URAA would likely depend on the status in Russia in 1996 and not any other former republic.
I would not say the USSR was just like the EU. When it comes to foreign relations, each EU country is separate. The USSR as a whole joined the Universal Copyright Convention, for example -- it was not each republic which did so. If the USSR had similarly joined Berne, then it could not be argued that each republic was separate. The USSR was one country in regards to anything in the UCC treaty (though I think only Russia may have continued membership past the USSR breakup). Even India joined the Berne Convention separately in 1928, indicating a "more separate" status than republics in the USSR. That all said, each republic did have its own copyright law, so there was some more independence there. The main question for the Berne Convention though, is simultaneous publication within 30 days. If something was published in the RSFSR, and copies were distributed in the republics within 30 days, that would still be simultaneous publication even if the republics were considered separate. And wasn't anything done by the Soviet government supposed to apply to all republics? Seems logical that USSR government stuff would be considered simultaneous regardless. For more private works, it could maybe be argued more. None of the republics joined Berne until after they had become independent countries, so the issue of "publication" in the USSR could be cloudier, and may require actual distribution in the republics. That is part of the reason that some are uncomfortable when the Berne definition is used (though arguably that would still need to be used to determine "shorter term" in other countries). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I did not want to say the USSR was like the EU in every aspect in every manner, both de jure and de facto. De jure republic could have own military forces in some years (en:1936 Soviet Constitution in edition of 1944). De jure republic could have international relations, and UkSSR (Ukraine) + BSSR (Belarus) are founders of UN together with USSR (it had been even planned that every 16 reps would be among founders), UkSSR and BSSR have been members of UNESCO since 1954. When it comes to foreign relations in the EU, each EU country is not always separate - there are many treaties with the EU directly (for example the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between Russia and the EU). When USSR had joined the UCC - 25 years term of protection had been activated in specific republic only after this republic had changed own civil code. And wasn't anything done by the Soviet government supposed to apply to all republics? De jure - no (excluding matters of the Union) - specific republic had to change republic law or to determine that union law were in force directly. Alex Spade (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a FAQ or policy for National Portrait Gallery images?

Given the w:en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, what is WMF's current position on this issue? I've tried to look in the usual places with no success. I usually work on the English WP, not on commons, so I may not be looking in the right place. I wish to use an image copy of a postcard that was published in 1900, so my opinion is that this is unequivocally PD, but I don't want to step into a a mess that has already been resolved. I think we need a WMF statement and a HOWTO, since I suspect the details are complicated, but are not case-by-case. -Arch dude (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. That is Commons' official policy on this issue and includes the policy, a FAQ, and examples. —RP88 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I don’t think the WMF’s position has changed at all since this statement from before the dispute broke out; see also the community discussion linked from there. AFAICT the NPG backed down, and meanwhile the UK courts seem to have leaned away from the “sweat of the brow“ doctrine (although they might lean back post-Brexit). That said, the UK copyright on the postcard (assuming it was first published there) depends on the content; 1900 isn‘t quite old enough to assume the artist or photographer died before 1948. (No question it would be PD in the USA, published before 1923.) Does the postcard have a signature or credit, or does the NPG record identify the author? If the artwork is anonymous, its UK copyright would have expired in 1971.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. However, that policy dates from 2008, and the NPG dispute started in 2009. I was hoping for an explicit assertion that WMF rejects the NPG claims and continues to adhere to this 2008 policy and intends for this policy to be applied to NPG images. I agree with the policy, BTW, but it does not seem to explicitly reject the NPG assertion that its high-resolution images are somehow different from medium or low resolution images. Incidentally, the image in question was a photograph, not a painting, so it's not necessarily PD-art. -Arch dude (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
See here for Erik Möller's statement regarding the NPG issue (at the time he was WMF's deputy director). —RP88 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The NPG upload is pretty much the poster boy of the PD-Art policy. The resolution doesn't matter, because we're talking about public domain. Whether a cc-by-sa license can be confined to a specific resolution of a photo is another matter (discussed mostly at the time of the Bundesarchiv and Deutsche Fotothek partnerships). --Nemo 18:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
sorry, there are no "explicit assertions". you will not dictate how WMF responds to issues. they are not going to give you unequivocal guarantees. 2D objects regardless of medium are art. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The WMF's past statements appear sufficient in the absence of new UK law in this area, or non-hypothetical legal cases. For those living in the UK, the IPO's statement would be the best response and protection against an organization making ill conceived copyfraud claims:

"Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright? [...] according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work."
Intellectual Property Office, Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet (November 2015) link to PDF

--Fæ (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

File:DOL Seal-K.png

I don't think this is "own work" per se, but it's probably {{PD-USGov-DOL}} or some other form of {{PD-USGov}}. I cannot, however, find these exact version of this logo/seal on the en:United States Women's Bureau's official website. It looks to be nothing more than text added to File:Seal of the United States Department of Labor.svg, and adding said text is not really sufficient to create a derivative work since the DOL seal is "PD-USGov-DOL". So, even if this is partially user-created, it probably shouldn't be copyrighted as "cc-by-sa-4.0". -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cg71cape: What made you think using {{Own}} and {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} on this file was a good idea?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Seaweed Fertilizer Benefits.jpg

Can someone give the license for this work and pass it? I don't know if it is PD or CC BY SA as the uploader claims. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The PDF version of the article says that the copyright rests with the authors (who are all from Australian institutions), and that particular figure is labelled "Reproduced with permission from Seasol International." I can't see any indication that a CC licence applies. --bjh21 (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Leoboudv and Bjh21: Tagged as such.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I have passed the image as CC-by-4.0. If you go to the PMC page and check the "Copyright and License information" (just below the authors), you'll find a statement about the licence: "This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ..." De728631 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Miodrag Lekić Demos.jpg & File:Miodrag Živković.jpg

Does anyone know if these images are free? The permission link is expired (404 message). Perhaps only a Serbo-Croatian contributors knows how to read the language. The photos are based in Podgorica, Montenegro, I think. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete {{PD-US-defective notice}}?

This template is used on only 33 pages, and 3 of those are mine. Most files that should have this template instead use {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}. PD-US-defective notice can't even cover 1978-89 images.

In addition to this, many file pages use {{PD-US-no notice}} and include a lump of text with a link to circ03.pdf: insource:circ03. In many cases this is used to point out why the copyright notice is defective, but on some there really is no notice.

I'm thinking we should either create a non-license template that details copyright notice requirements or add a template parameter to {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-1978-89}} to detail those requirements (and possibly indicate which of the requirements is lacking) for files with present but defective copyright notices.

Any thoughts? - Alexis Jazz 16:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think keeping {{PD-US-defective notice}} is fine. It's for the case where where a work has a notice, but it not adequate in some manner. The templates {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-1978-89}} should really only be used for works which lack notice altogether (even legally insufficient notice). US case law does treat these two situations differently. In particular, US case law with regard to good faith, but erroneous, copyright notice under the 1976 copyright law (which went into effect in 1978) is extraordiarly sympathetic. I am not even sure it would be possible to draft a responsible version of the {{PD-US-defective notice}} template for the 1978 to 1989 period (i.e. a defective notice equivalent of {{PD-US-1978-89}}). —RP88 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The template is fine, but nobody uses it. The template has been around since 2009 and (not counting my files) it is used by 30 files. That's a little over 3 files per year. We have many files with a defective notice, it's just that nobody uses this template. In fact, I had even created {{PD-US-invalid notice}} before finding out about the existence of {{PD-US-defective notice}}. My idea would be to create something like:
{{PD-US-no notice|defective}} (generic)
{{PD-US-no notice|defective|symbol}} (when copyright symbol is missing)
{{PD-US-no notice|defective|author}} (when author is missing)
{{PD-US-no notice|defective|year}} (when publication year is missing)
{{PD-US-no notice|defective|collective}} ("A notice for the collective work will not serve as the notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work.", like when an ad is printed without its own notice in a magazine with notice, the ad is in the public domain)
- Alexis Jazz 20:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
While legally they are similar, I think it is good to note the specific reason why a seemingly-present notice may not be sufficient. I think many of the existing images which link to the circular you mention simply have no notice -- the few that I spot-checked anyways. It seems that was a boilerplate chunk of text that a few uploaders copied for missing notices. Technically, the notice requirements did carry through to 1989 but there were more ways to preserve copyright after 1978 so the notice alone may not be enough reason. BTW, the Compendium I had some more detail on what variants were accepted and which were not -- see Chapter 4 in this large PDF). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No opinion on the content of the copyright tag, but merging the two cases in a single template with appropriate parameters would be sensible. The more templates we have for the various cases, the less likely it is that people find them and know how to use them. --Nemo 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
+1. Yann (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
+1.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Check them better. The very first result, File:Hal Holbrook Our Town 1977.png has a stamp that says "Property of Field enterprises, inc June 1977" but no copyright symbol or "copyright" word. File:George Maharis 1972.jpg is a very similar case. File:Audrey Hepburn 1956.jpg says "Paramount photo by Bud Fraker" and "apr 4 1984" but again no copyright symbol. File:Vivian vance 1948.JPG also lacks a symbol. File:Jackson 5 on Soul Train.jpg explains why the magazine copyright does not apply to ads. And some (at least late seventies ABC press photos) like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/82/20111015202055%21Happy_days_motorcycle_richie_fonzie_1977.JPG will say "For editorial use only, all rights reserved" but no copyright symbol. - Alexis Jazz 20:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Hal Holbrook Our Town 1977.png doesn't even seem like an attempt at a copyright notice. It looks like a secondary stamp after distribution, so it could even refer to the owner of the physical item. That is no_notice to me. Same with File:George Maharis 1972.jpg. File:Audrey Hepburn 1956.jpg... seems more like attribution, then attempting at a copyright notice and failing. The last one is {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}, another special-case version of no_notice (and one that also applied until 1989). Not sure that "all rights reserved" qualifies at an attempt at notice either -- that was Buenos Aires Convention. If you don't even try for the word copyright, or the symbol, not sure it's close enough at an attempt to say it's defective. It's just no notice, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
In that case what would be a defective notice? - Alexis Jazz 01:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyright symbol / word but with misplaced name, or missing year, or invalid attempt at symbol, something like that. The Compendium I link I gave above has several examples of what is OK (using "(c)" was acceptable, but some other variants like "CO" were not). Generally, I think if you have an attempt at the copyright symbol or word, and the problems are with the rest of it (like a year too far in the future), then it would be defective. If you don't even bother to mention the word copyright, and just have names and years, that to me is not even an attempt at a notice, and there is nothing to be defective -- it's just missing. That is sort of why I think the separate tag can make sense -- it is used in places where at first blush there *is* a copyright notice, but that it has problems, and the tag can take more space to spell out those particular issues, and give links to relevant documentation. If we have one omnibus "no notice" tag, then all of the special cases would take up a ton of room. Like the advertisements one -- we can point to the particular section of law which deals with that, which would explain why the copyright notice on the composite work does not apply in that special case. For this case, 17 USC 406 goes over mistakes which make a notice defective even given a copyright symbol to start with, and Chapter 4 of the Copyright Compendium I has some details on what makes a valid copyright symbol mark (or word) and what does not. I think mistakes made in the areas of those two links would be "defective". Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
For example, check File:Hermey the elf and Rudolph.jpg. The film was published in MCMLXIV but someone accidentally omitted an M in the year in the copyright notice so it looked as if the film was published 800 years earlier. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Vodafone 2017.svg

The Vodafone logo (or various variations of it) has been repeatedly deleted via COM:DR on numerous occasions, yet it keeps getting re-uploaded. English Wikipedia treats the logo as non-free en:File:Vodafone logo 2017.png, but there's no reason for it to be licensed as such if it's not. So, either the previous DRs need to be reassessed/overturned, or Commons is unlikely to ever keep this file. If the former is the case, then maybe the all the deleted files can be restored. If the latter is the case, then maybe there's a way to flag the logo so to speak that others are aware of these previous discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"Vodafone introduced its Speechmark logo, composed of a quotation mark in a circle." The TOO for the UK may be low, but this low? I could understand the 2002-2006 logo being covered by UK copyright, but the current logo? Never. If it does get deleted, you still can't delete Nadafone on copyright grounds. That's funny, isn't it? - Alexis Jazz 04:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Stephen Reinhardt.jpg

Is this image PD as claimed by the uploader? I don't know who took the photo as it is not stated here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I'm fine with it. http://highlighthollywood.com/2016/01/beverly-hills-bar-assoc-honors-judge-stephen-reinhardt-top-trial-lawyer-morgan-chu-at-sixth-annual-litigation-awards-dinner/ says "Photo is Courtesy of Judge Stephen Reinhard". We will never know if he's that good with the self timer, possibly had another USGov employee take the photo (still PD) or maybe hired an external photographer. But in that case the photographer was hired by the USGov and that photographer would have been aware they were making a photo that would be used solely to present Stephen Reinhardt as a judge. The work has no value besides representing the USGov.
Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/12#Question about NASA image marked as copyrighted resulted in "no copyright".
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opening ceremony of 33th Fajr International Film Festival-1.jpg was also kept.
If you delete this, you can delete all PD-USGov content because some freelancer might have been hired to work on (part of) it and we can't prove that didn't happen. - Alexis Jazz 11:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Pinkman with Yannick Gingras.jpg

The source only states "Creative Commons erkännande" which means "Creative Commons recognition" according to Google translate. It is not known whether commercial use is allowed or not. Furthermore the version number (3 or 4) is not indicated. Is the license acceptable? 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  • "Creative Commons erkännande" is Swedish for CC-BY but the uploader listed CC-BY-SA which isn't correct.
As far as I know, all Creative Commons licences require reusers to reference the file's licence in one way or another. If the licence version number is unknown, I don't see how a reuser would know which licence the reuser should include a reference to.
On the line above the CC-BY statement, it says Fri publicering t.o.m. 160530 = "Free publication until 30 May 2016" and "free publication" could for example mean that the file is available under a free licence. Should the statement be interpreted as a restriction to the CC-BY licence such that the CC-BY licence automatically was revoked almost two year ago? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Quite possible. Mynewsdesk.com is listed at Commons:Bad sources for a reason. Most of the professionals in the communication business don't understand the rules that govern publishing. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
or rather the professionals have not drunk the kool-aid, and do not understand the free fanaticism. they are used to fee based distribution systems; they are not going to check you boxes. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Someone has definitely drunk something. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Alamy Images - Follow-on to "Wikimedia content copied into an external for-profit stock photograph database."

Regarding this archived discussion- just wanted to add I've also come across some of my own images (first published at Commons) uploaded to the Alamy site without credit. Examples:-

And so on. I should make clear that- as far as I can tell- only images I've uploaded under a public domain license/release have been copied over, i.e. none under a CC or GFDL license. (I haven't checked whether or not this is the case with anyone else's images).

Obviously the bulk-upload of Public Domain Commons images (assuming they *are* all Public Domain), not tagging them as such, not crediting the author and attempting to charge for them is cynical opportunism- but AFAIK not illegal in itself. It was my choice- sensible or not- to release them that way.

However, I'm curious as to the legality of someone else apparently claiming credit for something released into the public domain elsewhere- assuming that's what they mean by "contributor".

There are two claimed "contributors" (alongside "Alamy Stock Photo") for the above; "Archive PL" and "Paul Fearn" (previously mentioned, with 1.4m uploads).

I suspect it's more likely people would assume that (e.g.) "Paul Fearn" was the original photographer- whether or not that's what's actually being claimed- than in the case of "Archive PL". Both ways, it still smacks of ownership being claimed in something that's public domain.

Not saying that these are all great photos- the "Beachcomber bar" one taken on an point and shoot when I was nine clearly isn't(!!)- but it's more the principle. Not to mention (as raised in the original discussion) the risk of Alamy falsely claiming ownership in images originally uploaded here in future, intentionally or otherwise.

(I note that the green text in the original discussion has Alamy's supposed disclaimer saying they aren't necessarily claiming credit, but this isn't obvious from the photo upload pages- and possibly intentionally so...?)

Yottanesia (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In the US, if they were claiming copyright, they could be committing a federal crime; I've read no one has ever been charged under that section. If they were explicitly claiming exclusive rights, they could be charged with fraud. It's conceivable you could make a case as the photographer that their willfully false actions in putting another person's name on the work damaged your reputation, but I'd suspect the judge would have some sharp questions about how specifically you were damaged and why if you were concerned about such things did you put them into the public domain. At the end of the day, with them only taking PD works and never explicitly making false statements about them, I'm sure the state isn't going to get involved, and I suspect any private actors would need to spend a lot of money to get even an apology. IANAL, but backseating it, I think the best thing to do is shrug and use at least CC-BY if you're going to be worried about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: . Thank you for your response; yes, I'd considered some of these issues, and to be honest, the original comment was as much "for the record" and to express concern at the more general principle of Alamy potentially blurring these (and other) images' origins.
I've already been more likely in recent years to use CC-BY et al instead of public domain for reasons like this, even in cases where I'm not that bothered about getting credit for something. Yottanesia (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the dodgy part is "licensing" public domain images. Sure you can charge for a download or omit attribution, but how do you issue licenses for something when you don't hold the copyright? --ghouston (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The courts don't seem to have a problem with this actually. The second paragraph from the bottom being the most telling. --Majora (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems the court didn't really address the issue, but decided Carol Highsmith wasn't a copyright holder so couldn't make copyright claims, and Getty settled the "minor state law claims" where it may have been relevant. Perhaps somebody who paid for a license and later complained that it was invalid would have a better case. --ghouston (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The court saying that she isn't a copyright holder is the decision. Almaty and Getty only take public domain images. So nobody would be the copyright holder and therefore any claim anyone makes would be void. They cover themselves pretty well so that a court cannot actually rule against them if they follow the law. The fact that they bring up Dickens and Shakespeare shows that they have thought this through. They are also protected by the impenetrability of the legal system. It isn't worth it for people to sue for fraud when a lawsuit would cost many magnitudes more than the cost of the "license". --Majora (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if their upload process is bot-friendly. Perhaps we should all have accounts there each with the same million PD or CC0 images on offer. --ghouston (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ghouston: ; Assuming "Archive PL" and "Paul Fearn" are third parties, I doubt Alamy would be bothered since they'd still get the same cut, and you'd be compounding the problem, not solving it. Yottanesia (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Yottanesia: Thanks, Commons:How Alamy is stealing your images - Alexis Jazz 02:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Alamy indeed confused me (and @Ytoyoda: ) for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manny Pacquiao weigh-in.jpg. Now restored, and closed as Kept. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: , would you mind if I made your essay a little bit more general? So it can be used for all stock photo sites. Since this isn't just an Alamy problem. Getty also has a history of doing this. Perhaps something like Commons:Deleting images based on stock photo sites? --Majora (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: Do Getty and others also take content from Commons? While you should still be careful on copyright patrol, it's different when you are talking about images that are PD because they are old. I will make some changes to my essay, but unless there are others that take and sell files from Commons I will keep it specific to Alamy. Do you mind if I make some changes to your essay to cover all these cases? - Alexis Jazz 06:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz and Majora: ; Thank you for those essays; they appear to form a strong basis of something that will- and should- be more widely read in future and hopefully noted in the guidelines.
Regardless of whether or not we can do anything practical to stop this parasitic behaviour, it's important for us to be more aware of- and draw attention to- the issue from now on. Yottanesia (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Probably? We know that Getty takes PD images just like Alamy and sells them for a profit. That much is clear from past VP/C threads. Whether they take them from Commons is not relevant. Even the image you mention on your essay wasn't taken from Commons. It was taken from Pixbay. Please feel free to make changes to the essay. It isn't a "personal" essay but something that I think all of Commons should know about. I really do believe that if we track who is uploading these images to these stock photo sites we can limit the damage done. Much like how we have a flickr blacklist, having a stock photo blacklist of sorts will only help stop the deletion of PD files based on these stock photo sites. --Majora (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Whether they take them from Commons is very relevant. If a Commons user uploads a PD-old photo from an archive and we stumble upon the same photo on Getty, we already know it's possible Getty just has access to the same archive. But this would happen by chance.
Alamy takes original Commons photos and sells them without any attribution. Because we don't expect such dickery, users here start deletion requests "because the image is on a stock photo site", assuming our picture must have originated from Alamy when in reality it is the other way around.
If you have no proof Getty or others are taking images directly from Commons (and it shouldn't be that hard to find) I assume for now it's just Alamy.
And by the way.. We copied File:Manny Pacquiao weigh-in.jpg from Pixabay. Alamy copied it from Commons, not from Pixabay. They use "our" filename. Then, Commons deleted it because Alamy copied it from us. - Alexis Jazz 16:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
in the Highsmith case, not relevant - whether they took the image from our download from Library of Congress, File:Idaho_farm_and_field.jpg [18] or directly from Library of Congress, or followed our link to Library of Congress. they fraudulently sent a dunning notice to the photographer. you should expect correspondence from them playing on ignorance. the consecration of stock photo sites is a bad standard of practice, you need to make decisions based on the sum of the evidence, not fruit of the tree. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
If anyone wants to help, look at a few links from the unchecked section at User:Alexis Jazz/sandbox and see if DR rationale is valid. - Alexis Jazz 10:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple copyright violation on images from the National Photo Collection of Israel

Ravravrav (talk · contribs) uploaded five images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) under CC-BY-SA-3.0, while there's no proof for that in the source. The source site's 'Terms' says that all content is protected by copyright. Altering, creating derivative works or commercial use is prohibited. The uploaded photos are relatively new to be in the public domain in Israel. The user also misused OTRS twice: 1, 2.

Another user, Ozer2019 (talk · contribs) (probably related account), uploaded higher resolution version of one of the photos from the same source with the same license: link (+derivative versions: 1, 2).

After uploading all these photos they were immediately added to enwiki by en:User:Avaya1 (latest example).

Pinging involved user @MathKnight and MathKnight-at-TAU: --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not the uploader of the original photo, but the National Photo Collection of Israel occasionally release photos under CC-BY/SA per request. Maybe the uploader got permission from them. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 09:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
It is also possible that since it was taken by the Israeli President Spokesperson, it was released under the CC-BY/SA as User:Hanay obtained such OTRS permission for their photos. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 09:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@MathKnight: There's no permission anywhere in the descriptions of these uploads. And the uploader has confirmed he doesn't know what he's doing: en:User talk:Avaya1#Use of multiple accounts. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I nominated these files for deletion. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/03&oldid=306118061"