This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This image was first copied to Commons from English Wikipedia back in 2007 but it's never had any useful source or author information. At this point, it has been copied all over the internet, so tracking down the original source may be difficult. Anyone have any clues? Kaldari (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Probably a scan from an old book. It was copied from the French Wikipedia, where it was uploaded on 2005-07-13 by a user who hasn't been seen since 2010.[1]--ghouston (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyright status of an Indian government seal
File:Seal of Jharkhand 2.png is currently marked as own work. That's pretty unlikely to be the case for a government seal. That raises the question, is the seal copyrightable in India and did the state that made it claim copyright on it? I am not so sure about the copyright of Indian sub-national entities. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, right now it's stuck in a limbo-like state just like COM:GRAFFITI, COM:COSPLAY, and COM:URAA, where some admins generally choose the keep them and some admins generally choose to delete them. We can't have a situation where the decision depends solely on which admin happened to close the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠19:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I really don't know. There was one article which said the issue of formalities was also in question for that period, because Berne does not allow them but they were still in their copyright law for that same duration. Technically Berne does not mandate that a country do anything with works by their own authors, just the works from other countries, but it would be odd not to apply that. Architecture may be something of a special case as well since those are generally not imported :-) It seems as though there are still questions on how treaties become operative law in the Philippines, though (given that the Philippine Senate did concur to the Berne Convention in 1950, effective 1951) it would be reasonably valid law. That link is a presidential proclamation from March 1955, which states that every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof. So maybe the really binding effect did not happen until 1955, but not sure. The Berne Convention does state though that it's matter for domestic legislation on how photos of architecture etc. would be protected, and that legislation did not exist until 1972. I'm not sure that the question of photos of buildings has ever come up in court there, so I'm not sure what the de facto treatment is -- it's possible photos of buildings are simply used without consequence there, so far. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I thought I'd message as I'm unable to find clear information on this. I'm planning to use an old passport photo in a Wikipedia article I've significantly expanded. I'm aware that in the US, passport photos are considered as created by Gov. employees, so are ineligible for copyright protection, and are under PD. The page "Category:Passports" also definitively states that all "Passport photos, while taken by a third party, are taken to government specifications and have no artistic merit that would transfer the copyright to the person operating the shutter.". Which PD tag should the photo be put under when it's submitted? Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
As with all copyrighted works, a photograph must have a sufficient amount of creative expression to be eligible for registration. The creativity in a photograph may include the photographer’s artistic choices in creating the image, such as the selection of the subject matter, the lighting, any positioning of subjects, the selection of camera lens, the placement of the camera, the angle of the image, and the timing of the image.
Most of these are indeed subject to government specifications. There isn't much room for creativity on the part of the actual photographer, but there may be enough to satisfy the originality requirement since the photo requirements are not that exacting. clpo13(talk)00:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that. While I believe the US passport photos taken by gov't officials are PD, as per a link on en:Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Passport photos, I'm unsure about other nations. Is this the same for either Sri Lanka or the United Kingdom? I believe Sri Lanka mentions nothing on the matter, so "Commons:Threshold of originality" may apply. In this case, I'm not sure a passport photo would fit. At the time of this passport photo, they would've been taken by unknown government employees to a government standard (hence, nothing deviates from the norm). Thanks, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ur2nozie may be inappropriately licensed
I have flagged up some images as having no source, corrected the PD licence of one file claimed as own work and reported a few copyright violations. As a general question to other editors, File:Bear Flag Revolt Flag.png appears to be a PNG version of File:1stBearFlag.svg, where the user has again claimed own work. Should this be flagged for deletion or is it worth it to correctly attribute the original author and retain it? From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth keeping a .png generated from a SVG that we already have. That is basically a duplicate. PNGs which are the source which someone created an SVG out of should be kept, but not the other way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
There is one final image I haven't dealt with at File:Remington Model 1863.jpg. While it is possible that it isn't a copyright violation, every other claim of own work from this user has been shown to be incorrect. What would be the best way to deal with this one? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Using contents from Government of Maldives website
According to the copyright policy of the official website of Government of Maldives, contents produced by the Government on that website is in the public domain and that submitted content is released under an Attribution 4.0 International License. So I contacted them to clarify how we can identify and categorize the contents that belong to them and third parties. According to them, any picture of media content appearing on their site, if provided with a courtesy statement or credit has been given to an individual person or a media agency, shall be licensed for reuse "through the independent consent of the original content owner". However, the rest of the contents including the pictures, that is if no credit is given to anyone, it is to be understood that those pictures are captured by their own staff and produced by themselves and so no consent is required for reuse. Hence, I would like to confirm if it is permissible to upload an image provided in this link to Wikipedia and if so, which license to use? ShappeAli (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Since we don't have a dedicated government template for the Maldives, and {{PD-Maldives}} only refers to official texts, I think {{PD-author |1=Government of the Maldives}} should be used. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
All the images in this category are of sculptures by Elisabeth Daynes houses in the public Museo de la Evolución Humana, Burgos, Spain. FOP Spain only applies to "works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares", so does a public museum interior count as "other public thoroughfares" or should these all be deleted? If no, does the FOP of any country extend to models displayed in public museum interiors? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
My main confusion is the meaning of "permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public". Does "public space" mean only the outdoors (as in, viewable from the sidewalk or a public park or plaza), or does it include the interiors of publicly owned buildings (for example, public schools or museums), even though they are not accessible 24/7 due to closing hours? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sokoban logo and the threshold of originality in the United States and Japan
I understand the concept of the threshold of originality, especially in American terms, and based on this page and my prior experience with seeing many (mostly text-only) Japanese logos, it would appear that the American and Japanese standards are similar. However, when considering this logo of the Japanese game of Sokoban, which can be found on the official website, I debate myself on whether it counts as a public domain logo, as are the logos of Sony Channel, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, Actas, and GameCube (to be fair, one of those and other logos may be slightly over the TOO, but at least I am bringing them attention for evaluation).
The logo is specifically for a sequel or spinoff of Sokoban, but I am looking at the text "倉庫番" and ignoring the rest of the logo. The "倉庫番" is also the image of the website's home button, and while I could use the latter version instead, it runs into the risk of reaching the TOO with the 3D lighting, so I opted for a flat version of the logo that contains only "倉庫番" and nothing else. I am inclined to say that at least the flat version does not, but the only thing that prevents me from confidently doing it is that the 田 radical of the character 番 is stylized to look like a box—the concept of which is essential to the gameplay. I am also inclined to believe that that styling is too simple to be copyrighted in both countries, as it is a rounded rectangle with gradients and two red perpendicular lines for interwoven laces. I have been converting that logo into vector for who-knows-how-long, but first I need an opinion on whether a logo like that counts as being simple enough by American and Japanese standards, and I would rather do that than upload it and embarrassingly see the file be flagged for deletion. FreeMediaKid!09:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
This is currently hosted at the English Wikipedia as PD-textlogo. I'm somewhat reluctant to transfer it over here because of the really low TOO in the UK. What do others think? De728631 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
oLEEDUEOLo has plenty of furry art and Sonic the Hedgehog fanart stated to be licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 on their pages and they would make great use for Wikimedia Commons. However, his DeviantArt profile used to state a message like "DO NOT REPOST MY ART WITHOUT PERMISSION" and his Twitter and Instagram still does. I have no idea if that message applies to his newer art, which are copyrighted, and all of his artwork, in which in this case he might have forgotten to change the licenses (if that's possible). I've commented about this on his DeviantArt profile, but he hasn't responded. How should I deal with this? COM:Precautionary principle? PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Can Commons keep this photo as licensed or does it need to be OTRS verified? I don't think it's the own work of the uploader given that the source provided here (also here) seems to be a website owned by a commercial sign company. The sign itself might be OK to be photographed per COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs and COM:TOO United States since the school logo appears to be incidental to the photo as a whole and the rest of the sign is bascially text, but not sure. Even if the sign is PD though, the photo's copyright probably needs to be clarified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Seems to me it needs some clarification of the licence, because it's not clear who put CC BY-SA on it, and if they had the right to do so. (Uploader has the same last name as the author given in the description box, but that's not the name of the company. All circumstantial anyway.) OTRS is very likely the best option overall, but an explicit licence on the originating website could work too. Photo is of an aspect of an object with mainly 2-D attributes (actually mostly composed of uncopyrightable text), but plausibly taken from ground level for practical reasons rather than composition reasons, so I wouldn't give much weight to the upward angle. However the photo composition includes a background when it could have been tightly cropped to the sign, so I would say that we should decline to treat it as a mere facsimile of a 2-D object. (A tight crop to the signboard would in my opinion, be a mere facsimile of a 2-D object, despite what I perceive to be an immaterial degree of texture.) As for originality of the logo, it's difficult to see quite what is going on (below the dolphin), so I'd withhold judgment on that count and just concur that the logo is de minimis in terms of the composition of a photo of the sign. If none of this is palatable, there could maybe be a fair use rationale on (for example) English Wikipedia. TheFeds06:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
UK equivalent to "PD-US-no notice" or "PD-US-not renewed"
Is anyone familiar with COM:UK#Ordinary copyright as it pertains to print adds or pamphets? It looks like in most cases copyright is considered to be in effect for at least 50 to 70 p.m.a. I'm trying to figure out whether the advert shown here might possibly be PD for some reason. There seems to be cases where {{PD-US-notrenewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}} is applied to print adds appearing in US publications; so, I'm wondering if there's any thing similar for UK publications. It appears that the pamphet/advert first appeared in this industrial and commercial directory published in 1961. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, only the US has such complex requirements. It's possible some other UCC nation might have some notice requirements that still have effects, but old-school Berne Convention nations like the UK have always had registration-free copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
At present, the political pages of Singapore prominently feature variant party logos in tables and infoboxes. These variant logos have been simplified to the best understanding to be under TOO. However, there's no standard way to classify them under the correct copyright status. As such, I am requesting for a third opinion on the matter, especially in light of two logos which had been nominated for deletion.12
I have divided the numerous logos into three main questions for simplicity.
Is the Commons copy under TOO and can we keep it unmodified?
5. The PVP's simplified logo is uploaded to Commons. See original. It may be considered a derivative work as I simply removed the roundel and text.
6. The PPP's simplified logo is uploaded to Commons. See original It may be considered a derivative work as I simply removed the the fist.
Requesting assistance, thank you. I would request to not nominate any for deletion yet as I can still simplify them further as necessary and to avoid breaking many pages. Seloloving (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
RE: Copyright status: File:Parent Commission.jpg
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales Québec granted me the permission to use the Parent Commission photograph specifically on Wikipedia for a duration of 2 years, at the condition that the provenance of the photograph be properly indicated. What copyright tag should I use in this case?
{{Sdelete}}. Nothing that offers "permission to use specifically on Wikipedia" can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, or the English Wikipedia without a fair use note. French Wikipedia has some local file upload, but I doubt they're going to permit this; I don't speak French or edit on that Wikipedia, so you'll have to ask them. Likewise, a "duration of 2 years" is not acceptable; any work uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia must have no restrictions on being permanently part of those archives.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lindapolytope: To be clear, are you asking about File:Parent Commission.jpg? If so, is the current description of it being in the public domain due to expired Crown Copyright correct? If the file is in the public domain, no one can place any restrictions on it (unless they create a derivative work, which then has copyright of the derivative elements). Why do you think that permission is needed from Bibliothèque et Archives nationales Québec? From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The uploader did not place a status tag when uploading the file on 5 August. Someone tagged the file as "no license" and left a "image license" template on the uploader's talk page on 6 August. I added the PD-Canada status tag to the file on 13 August. The 1961 photograph, from the fonds "Office du film du Quebec" (E6,S7 at Library and National Archives Quebec), is PD-Canada as Crown copyright expired because the photographer Neuville Bazin took this photo as part of his duties as an employee of the Office du film du Québec, which was a division in the departement of the Secretary of the Government of Quebec. (The file may not be PD-US because of the URAA, but that is a different matter.) Someone removed the "no license" tag from the file on 16 August. In the meantime, maybe the inexperienced uploader misunderstood the meaning of the "no license" note (which actually just means "the file is missing a status tag") and was under the impression that the note required them to request an actual license from the Library who hosts the fonds. The uploader obtained the license from the Library on September 3. The employee of the Library probably issued a license simply because the person requested it. Material at the Library is often described as "copyright not yet evaluated". It's probably not the job of the employee to evaluate the copyright status of the material. If a person requests a license on such a piece, I guess the Library just issues one. As mentioned in the other comments above, this license is not useful. It's a good thing that it was issued at no cost. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I am the uploader of this photograph. If memory serves, upon uploading it, for the copyright status I chose 'I am not sure, I found it on the internet, I think it's in the public domain' or something along this line. I thought it was in the public domain because it was taken more than 50 years ago, thus should be free of restriction. Meanwhile, I emailed the National Library inquiring about its copyright status to be sure. The Library's reply states that 'BAnQ possesses the copyright of this document. By consequence, [we] will issue you a license of distribution.' (BAnQ possède les droits d’auteur sur ce document. Par conséquent, allons vous émettre une licence de diffusion.) It was a total confusion to me when I received today in the mail the license in the paper form. I am not sure what to do with it. -- Lindapolytope (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information. If we look at the description of this fonds (Office du film du Québec E6,S7) at BAnQ (the Library) [2], we see that the whole fonds is under these terms of use: "Conditions d’utilisation : Droit d’auteur non évalué BAnQ n’a pas évalué le statut de cette œuvre en ce qui concerne le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins. Vous êtes libre d’utiliser cette œuvre dans les limites de ce qui est permis par le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins." (My approximate translation: "Terms of use: Copyright not evaluated. BAnQ has not evaluated the copyright status and neighbouring rights of this work. You are free to use this work in the limits of what is permitted by copyright and neighbouring rights.") So, basically, it's the responsibility of the users to evaluate themselves the status of each piece. If a piece is in the public domain, it can be used freely. The copyright on government fonds may well be held by the Library. Still, that applies only to works whose copyright is not expired (e.g. works newer than 1970), not to works whose copyright is expired. I suppose that they did not explain why they believed the copyright of this work would not be expired according to section 12 of the Copyright Act, at least in Canada. Perhaps they are thinking of the copyright that exists in countries other than Canada, such as in the United States, and the license would be useful to someone who wants to use the work there. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Asclepias: I got an email from BAnQ following my questioning about the meaning of the mention Droit d’auteur non évalué and whether a license is necessary in the use of this particular photograph: «Pour répondre à votre questionnement, quand vous retrouvez la mention “Droit d’auteur non évalué” dans la description d’un document sur Advitam, cela expose simplement que la vérification des droits n’a pas encore été faite par nos services. Cela indique aux usagers qu’ils doivent, en premier lieu, vérifier avec le centre d’archives qui conserve le document pour que ce dernier procède aux vérifications nécessaires. Le processus de validation des droits est toujours en cours étant donné que nous avons une très grande quantité de documents dans nos réserves. Dans le cas des photographies de l’OFQ (E6,S7,SS1), afin de déterminer quelle mention de droits doit être appliquée pour ce corpus, une analyse juridique rigoureuse a été faite par notre institution et nos services juridiques. Même si c’est la même mention de droits pour toutes les œuvres de ce corpus, cette mention a été mise sur la description de chaque photo, comme vous pouvez le constater dans cet exemple. Le traitement et la description des photos de l’OFQ dans Advitam est toujours en cours et c’est pourquoi la photo de la Commission Parent ne s’y trouve pas encore. Cependant, la mention des droits est la même que l’exemple mentionné ci-dessus.» The Library's reply doesn't make reference to the section 12 of the Copyright Act of Canada, and states that the Parent Commission photograph bears the same copyright status as this example. What do you think? -- Lindapolytope (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
It's always problematic when they don't state a reason for their claim and we have to guess. Anyway, let's try to guess what it might be. The fact that they claim a copyright on the 1937 photo suggests that they may base their claim on the idea that the photo was not "published" and that for this reason the photo escapes the copyright expiration of section 12. I guess that is possible for some photos that may have been made initially for a limited use. But that can't be the case for all photos. Many photos had to be published. I understand that one of the main missions of the OFQ was to provide photographs and films for publication. So, in the end, it may be a matter of determining for each photograph if it was published. The Commission Parent photo looks like the coverage of an event and would normally be published. I think it is reasonable to assume so. To be entirely certain, you would have to find publications of the 1960s. Considering the fact that, from their latest email you quoted above, they do seem to claim a copyright on all the photos in the fonds without exception, validly or not, you may personally prefer to be cautious and request the deletion of the file. However, I think we should not delete all the other OFQ photos that are on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I think it's better to be cautious based on my correspondance with the Library. I shall request the deletion of the Commission Parent photograph. -- Lindapolytope (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Urheberrecht, wenn Erbe der Staat ist oder nicht bekannt ist
Hallo,
mein Anliegen ist: Ich möchte ein Wiki über die Kunstmalerin Magdalena Klett (1901-1973) schreiben, natürlich mit Wiedergaben von Gemälden der Künstlerin.. Sie hat keine natürlichen Erben, weil sie als Säugling ausgesetzt wurde (man weiß also nicht, wer die Eltern waren), kein Kind hatte und nicht verheiratet war. Da sie am Ende verarmt war und mindestens zum Teil von Sozialhilfe lebte, dürfte sie kein materielles Erbe und somit wohl auch kein Testament hinterlassen haben. Ganz sicher kann man Letzteres nicht wissen. Kann in einem solchen Fall erklärt werden, dass Erben des Urheberrechts trotz Recherchen nicht ermittelt werden konnten? In welcher Art wird dann die Lizenz formuliert?
Oder nimmt man besser an, der Staat sei Erbe, und kann man der zuständigen staatlichen Stelle einen Text vorschlagen, in dem sie zustimmt, dass Bilder per CC BY-SA 4.0 veröffentlicht werden?
Mit bestem Dank im voraus,--Der Kurt2 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Deutsch: Hallo, Der Kurt2. Ich denke, dass Ihre Frage ist, ob Werke, deren einmal von dem Künstler gehaltenes Urheberrecht niemand ihm nahe geerbt hat, die Gemeinfreiheit betreten. An der Oberfläche scheint das annehmbar zu sein, aber ich argumentiere dagegen aus zwei Gründen. Der Erste ist, dass die Werke wegen ihrer Alter immer noch urheberrechtlich geschützt ist, und der Zweite deutet an, dass jemand unbekanntes die Rechte behalten dürfte. Vielleicht ist es äußerst unwahrscheinlich, dass jemand tut, aber meiner Meinung nach ist es das nicht wert, diese Gemälden hochzuladen und jemandes Urheberrecht verletzen zu riskieren, besonders falls jemand ja die Rechte behaltet. Ich hoffe, das beantwortet Ihre Frage. FreeMediaKid!
English: Hello, Der Kurt2. If I am right, your question is whether works whose copyright once owned by the artist until death was not inherited by anyone close to them enter the public domain. On the surface, this would appear to be acceptable, but I argue against that for two reasons. The first reason is that the works are still copyrightable due to their age, and the second suggests that someone unknown may be holding onto those rights. It may be extremely unlikely that someone is, but in my opinion, it is not worth it to upload these paintings and risk infringing someone's copyright, especially if someone is holding onto those rights. I hope this answers your question. FreeMediaKid!00:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
My wife's stepfather was a comic book illustrator from the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. He died in 1972, and we are creating a Wikipedia page about his life and career. We'd like to include a hand-drawn self-portrait sketch which has been passed down through our family, with no copyright attached to it. It's a personal item. What's our next step in doing this legally so Wikipedia can use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morykwas (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Morykwas: The first step is to work out which legal jurisdiction applies as copyright law varies per country. What nationality was your wife's stepfather and do you know which country he would have been in when he created the work? Normally copyright will exist for a period of years after the death of the creator; the copyright will usually either remain in their estate or pass to one of the creator's heirs. Was your wife the legal heir of her stepfather or was there someone else (perhaps biological children from another marriage)? Was there a will involved or was the transfer between family members more informal? From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, we've decided to publish the article without the picture. I appreciate your help!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morykwas (talk • contribs) 22:11, September 10, 2020 (UTC)
IANAL, but as far as I understand de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium_„öffentlich“: The work being outdoors is not enough. Whether the work itself is on public ground or not does not matter (much?), what matters is indeed where the photographer was located. That needs to be a place that is dedicated for public use (might still be owned privately). It seems to be quite clear that if you paid a fee to visit the place, it is not considered public use and FOP does not apply. So yeah, unfortunately it looks like a permission from the park owner would be needed to keep these.
Please don't just drop one big mass DR, it would probably be good to have one per park. Some parks might have some kind of permission statement on their website. Also note that e.g. Category:Saurierpark Kleinwelka has a lot of pictures that were taken outside the park or show nothing that would be subject to copyright. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone recall a consensus on whether the CC licence tag should be included in addition to the PD tag? In my view the addition of the CC licence tag, placed below the PD tag, would correctly document the grant of licence. If a PD tag were inherently and permanently dispositive of the copyright status, the CC licence would be superfluous—but that's not the case. In principle, PD status can be changed by a change in the law, or alternatively the correctness of our tagging can be called into question if new evidence emerges later. The CC licence would provide for an alternative that is immune to PD concerns. TheFeds09:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template for this purpose. It looks better than just putting one license template below the other. I don't see any problem with adding a semi-free license, since it's only auxiliary to the main public domain claim. --ghouston (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that template is exactly the presentation I had in mind; I just couldn't remember where I had seen it. I note that there are a couple special-case licence tags like {{GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc-3.0}}. Would it be reasonable to use something like {{Licensed-PD-Art|1=PD-old-auto-expired|2=Cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}} with a new version of {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, except NC, and therefore in red like the first example? This seems to be compatible with Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. Also, as a practical matter, is this worth addressing piecemeal by file, or widely by bot (and if so what additional consensus, if any, would you recommend seeking)? TheFeds05:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, I wouldn't mind having NC/ND tags for cases where the works are licensed as such, but are still OK for Commons (such as copyright expiry or U.S. logos that are ineligible for protection), as long as they make it clear that they may not be used on their own or the file(s) will be deleted; compare {{Not-free-US-FOP}} as well as the tags found at w:en:WP:ICT/FU#Supplemental. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)01:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Note that for a majority of images from the British Museum, {{PD-Art}} is inaccurate, because they actually fall under {{PD-scan}} (which has even less creativity than photography). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a template called Licensed-PD-Scan, but you're welcome to create one. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠01:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@TheFeds: no, that's not going to work. First line says: "You can offer as many licenses for a file as you want as long as at least one of them meets the criteria for free licenses above". The only license you would be offering is "Cc-by-nc-sa-4.0" and that's not a free license. Multichill (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Bot making a mess?
As per my watchlist, a bot is putting in a huge amount of copyright statements on images I've uploaded. That's OK except in an amount of cases where something like this happens. There is no copyright for such an old photo. Father Time released the copyright, not I. What, if anything, can and should be done? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The bot is reading the licence on the image and then making a structured data statement that says the same thing. In this case, the licence is {{PD-self}}, which means the uploader owns the copyright and has released it into the public domain. Probably a different licence should have been chosen in this case. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing and From Hill To Shore: I seem to have missed this ping. Currently the bot only does additions, no fixes yet. Bot doesn't have feelings so please just revert it after you fixed the templates and it will just come along and do it again, but now based on the correct templates. Multichill (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
COI editor uploads
Hello from enwiki. Vickypedia22 (talk·contribs) has uploaded a few company logos and claimed them as their own work. While this is very likely not true, I was wondering whether they are simple enough to qualify as public domain. The companies are UK-based, if that makes a difference. Teratix (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Can I upload the images and the videos to Wikipedia?
Hello there, The images and the videos in the link below have been claimed to be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. See here. Can I upload them to Wikipedia? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The images between the two websites are completely different, except for a photo of the artist. "Mys_721tx" doesn't have the ability to recognize this, and carries his personal mood, so he can't discuss the question I'm asking.--Jujiang (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Grandfather CC-SA like GFDL
You probably start reading this topic wondering why I want to grandfather CC-BY-SA. I don't, I want to grandfather {{Cc-sa-1.0}}. I knew it existed, but forgot about it and already ignored it 10 years ago when doing the big Creative Commons license internationalization project. The ShareAlike 1.0 Generic (CC SA 1.0) is a legacy license that has long ago been retired by Creative Commons: "Creative Commons has retired this legal tool and does not recommend that it be applied to works." It's barely used here (about 4000 files) so it's probably best we formally retire it too like we did with {{GFDL}}. What steps should we take? Multichill (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I Support that we do not use old licenses on new uploads. We have no use for it and it is possible for uploaders to pick another license. It is not listed on MediaWiki:Licenses for example so my guess is that if anyone use it on new uploads it's a typo or its a file that is transferred from some other wiki.
When we grandfather licenses like with GFDL I think we should still allow to transfer old files from other Wikis. On some wikis users (me included) try to cleanup and move all files to Commons. Therefore it will be a problem if we can't transfer files because Commons have grandfathered a license.
I also think that it would be a good idea if we told the wikis about the change of allowed licenses. That way we reduce the risk of new files being uploaded to Wikipedia with an old license that can now never be moved to Commons.
Also we do no longer use {{PD-self}} on files. Instead we use Cc-zero. I noticed that several Wikis still used PD-self. They had no idea it was not a good license. We are the experts in licenses so lets help Wikis remove the bad licenses :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose at least until an alternative way to release the work uder a copyleft licence without requiring attribution will begin to exist. Perhaps the "experts in licenses" can help to come up with one before making proposals for banning licences. By the way "grandfathering" is only necessary after you ban a licence. So for not Grandfathering is impossible because CC-SA is a valid licence. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 12:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: We shouldn't be banning licenses simply because their authors have retired them. We banned (some) GFDL files because GFDL has some requirements that are impractical is some use-cases, and some Commons users seemed to be taking advantage of this to deliberately prevent those use-cases. In essence, GFDL wasn't practically a free licence. That's not the case for CC SA 1.0. Indeed, CC SA 1.0 is useful precisely because it's more free than CC BY-SA licences. --bjh21 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: The GFDL (or rather the restriction that the licencetext had to be included with every use) was more abused than used and practicly preveted the (commercial) reuse of a file outside of the Wikimedia system. Just because a licence is old does not mean it can't or shouldn't be used any longer. As far as I remember the CC-committee retired the licence because it wasn't used really often. Most copyright holders wanted to be attributed. The licence provides a solid base if you want to share your files under a copyleft licence that does not require attribution. If this licence is grandfathered, there is not really a good alternative other than home brewed licences that nobody wants to see. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose There seems to be no particular issue with that licence. Maybe we should add some wording that discourages using it for new uploads, purely because it's not very common and thus a tad confusing, but it certainly should remain an option, particularly for transferring works from other sources where this licence is used. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Uploading image with company logo
Hello. I'm trying to upload an image of a gold bar in protective case, something similar to this image. But I noticed that some images with logos are restricted. The photo is taken by me, and it contains the logo of PAMP on the bar and case. Will it be possible to upload? --Bigsmile20 (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bigsmile20. If the logo is exactly the same as en:File:Logo-pamp.png, then I don't think it should be problem because that logo seems to clearly be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States and also probably per COM:TOO Switzerland and en:Intellectual property protection of typefaces#Switzerland (though I'm not so sure on that). FWIW, I think the logo file uploaded locally to English Wikipedia was licensed as non-free content as a precaution by someone just trying to be extra cautious. However, if the logo on the bar itself is much more complex, then things are probably trickier to sort out and perhaps such a photo wouldn't be allowed unless possibly COM:DM could be argued because the logo part of the photo was considered to only be incidental. Is photo already available somewhere online? Did you upload it to Facebook or something like that where it can be seen? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I didn't put it to Facebook or something, but similar photos can be found on the internet. The third image(the back one) on this website is similar to what I am trying to upload. (I'm not sure whether I can link it.) It contains letter style logos on the bar and case. --Bigsmile20 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
There appear to be two different PAMP logos and the Veriscan measure on the white side (and two different artistic renderings of Lady Fortuna if considering the blue side, front/back are confusing in this case), plus the packaging. Is all of that under Swiss TOO? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me15:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard statement that is present on practically any site. It can not deprive Chris Baker of his copyright if he is indeed the author of the logo. Ruslik0 (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
What I mean is if the organization in question also allow the distribution under CC or not. Even Chris Baker is indeed a designer, it may be the case that the organization reserved some or all its right. So it is not be as clear as if the website openly stated that the distribution of the logo is allowed. --Horus (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This appears to be a COM:DW work containing various elements. The file's description says it from 23 April 1916, but that only appears to be one of the elements. If, for example, you enlarge the photo, there's a different date listed and it actually looks like it comes from another publication. I'm not sure this can be kept, but I just wanted some other opinions first before starting a DR on this.
Yes, the first image includes a clipping from a supplement of a newspaper called "El Mundo" published (or printed) in Ecuador on Sunday, 31 January 1982. The clipping at the bottom of the page appears to be written by w:en:Horacio Hidrovo Peñaherrera, who died in 2012. That text element is almost certainly a copyright violation.
The second image should go to DR. I can't spot an obvious copyright violation but without further evidence we have to assume the cover art on a couple of those books is still in copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Marchjuly (talk) and From Hill To Shore (talk) for your kind input. Horacio Hidrovo Peñaherrera was a good friend of my father's and wrote the prologue to the second and fourth edition of his novel. I have credited him in the body of the draft. Peñaherrera says in the clip that he obtained the copy of the handwritten El Iris from Columba Coppiano whom he visited in Chone. The Coppiano family was one of the few families receiving El Iris in 1916. She kept it all these years! Since it forms such an integral part of the Oswaldo Castro narrative, I would like to keep the image. Is it violating copyright laws if I just scan the 1916 Iris and not the whole article which includes the text element? Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oscar Waldoosty: To upload anything to Commons you need to determine if the file is suitably licensed (or is in the public domain) in both the country of publication and in the USA (where the Wikimedia servers are kept). For the US element, any image or document published before 1925 is in the public domain; you can set {{PD-US-expired}} on applicable images. For the country of origin element, it depends on local Copyright law. I assume that the document was made in Ecuador; is that correct? Is Columba Coppiano the person who wrote the 1916 text; if so, do you know when they died? In most countries copyright is protected for a number of years after the author's death. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
No, From Hill To Shore (talk), Columba Coppiano was the recipient of a copy of El Iris, not the author of the handwritten text. The person who wrote the Iris text in the image in question is Enrique Amadeo Bolaños Moreira. He died in 1929 according to Coppiano https://www.eldiario.ec/noticias-manabi-ecuador/389323-chone-iris-periodismo-precursor-ii/. I surmise that Bolaños wrote it and not Castro because in a typewritten document found among Castro's papers entitled "Some brief notes on the origin of the weekly manuscript, El Iris," it states that the first page was written by Bolaños, the subsequent three were written by Castro. That looks like the first page of the second issue on the image. I can research to see if Ecuadorian copyright laws differ from the US. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oscar Waldoosty: According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ecuador, Ecuador applies copyright for life of the author +70 years. As the author died in 1929, the copyright expired in 1999. You should be able to upload the 1916 part of the image with a licence of {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1929}}. Make sure to describe where the document came from in the "source" field on the template and list Enrique Amadeo Bolaños Moreira as the author instead of yourself. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
How can I use a logo of company if I do not own the licence to that logo?
I work in a company, and they commissioned me to update the Wikipedia page about the company. I want to add the company logo o the page, but I do not own the logo.
(Logo can be seen top corner of page- https://www.eng.elhalev.org/)
I uploaded as a regular jpeg and said it was a picture I took because I didn't think about the repercussions. How can I have the logo, and how do I change the picture I uploaded?
The simplest way to delete the image you uploaded (File:לוגו אל הלב.jpg) is to click on the 'Nominate for deletion' link. If your account is configured to use English then this is probably on the left of the screen. This deletion process can take several weeks, for faster alternatives see COM:SPEEDY. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. How can I change the image to a fair use? Do I need to delete the image and upload again?
Yes, Commons cannot host fair use images. I notice that it has already been deleted here; you need to upload it to Hebrew Wikipedia. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes: ~~~~, see COM:SIGN. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyright on UK coins
COM:CUR UK appears to say that images of UK coins that were minted and circulated within the last 50 years are not permissible on Commons. On this basis I nominated several images for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/UK coins minted after 1969.
User:Wehwalt has commented that the minting date of a coin is not significant, what matters is the earliest date the that a coin with the design was issued. Samples of the UK 1/2p, 1p and 2p coins were released in 1968, albeit bearing the date 1971. Coins of the same design on the reverse side were subsequently produced with minting dates up to 2008 (with a word changed in 1982). Does this mean that images of these coin designs are allowed, irrespective of the minting date of the coin? Verbcatcher (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
My understanding of it is that date of the design is what counts. You can't postdate a copyright. I've altered the language on the page Verbcatcher cited to make it clear, and left an explanatory note. I should note that these were more than samples, they were available for sale to the public in little albums I think for four or five shillings.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
the 3 files tagged for deleting
These 3 files are nominated by one user for copyright
Google Translate gives استفاده از خبر با ذکر منبع خبرگزاری ایسنا مجاز است. as 'Using the news is allowed by mentioning the source of ISNA news agency'. It's not clear whether this applies to images as well as text, although the translation could be inadequate. I think this declaration is inadequate for Commons:Licensing. A photo of a statue needs to satisfy the photographer's copyright and the sculptor's copyright, see COM:IRAN. Essentially, the sculptor must have died more than 50 years ago and you need good evidence of the photographer's permission. I am unsure which statue you mean, but most of those displayed by your link look too modern to be allowed. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
ARE YOU SAYING I HAVE TO TAKE PHOTO OF PEOPLE GATHERING GARBAGE, STATUES NEAR RIVER, STATUE IN THE DISTRICT 15 SQUARE MYSELF? I CANT TAKE A PHOTO OF THE TIE GIVEN TO SWISS MINISTER THOBaratiiman (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I am curious if the image mentioned above should be hosted on Wikimedia commons as the Eiffel Towers lights are a copyrighted display and cannot be use without permission? I only asked because I have recently read a couple articles about this [5] and [6] I did not want to flag it for deletion without ensuring that Wikimedia doesn't have some sort of exemption from commercial use. Thanks in advance for any information. Mcmatter (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I would say the lights are de minimis for that particular photo either way. The original court case was about a special light show, not the standard night lighting. But, the ruling sounded expansive enough to cover the night lighting as well. However, it has been argued a lot here, with some strong opinions both ways. There is some discussion on the category page. Not sure we've ever come to a real conclusion, but not sure these get nominated a lot anymore either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
If the logo is copyrighted, then someone with the ability to edit a PDF should probably download this, put a Gaussian blur over the logo, and re-upload. - Jmabel ! talk19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The logo is definitely de minimis; we're interested in the document as a whole, which is just a list with no original authorship. I added a DM tag. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)01:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
This image of an item from an arts auction, straight from the web page of the auction, had been uploaded by User:TadejM as {{PD-text}}, asserting that "there is nothing copyrightable (the text is generic computer code)".
In my opinion, the fact that it was traded as a work of art implies that it is copyrightable; a similar case is en:File:Iris Clert Portrait Rauschenberg.jpg -- another text-only work of art, but tagged as copyrighted fair use.
Q1: is Kernighan's text-only work of art copyrightable or not?
To be extra sure, I've emailed Kernighan himself for permission to use his work of art on Commons, and got the following response:
I personally am happy to grant permission to Wikipedia
for the Hello World printout, as CC-BY-SA. I don't know who
really has the right, since I created it originally, then
donated it to Artsy, who then auctioned it to someone (not
known to me). But you have my permission insofar as it is
mine to give.
Brian Kernighan
Q2: is it possible for him to grant a CC-BY-SA license for his work of art after it had been donated to the auction house and sold on?
Being a work of art has no connection to being copyrightable, at least in the US. The page is indeed PD-text, IMO. (I'd say the same about the similar case, at least in the US.) Generally, the copyright does not follow the physical work, so Kernighan would have the copyright, if there were any copyright to have.
Deemed copyrightable by whom? That's the problem with comparing Wikipedia and Commons files; just because someone uploaded it under that license doesn't make any sort of consensus. I'm not sure what just what's going on in that photograph or what exactly is being photographed. It's got both an illustration and 23 words of text. In comparison, Kernighan's work has 13 tokens and four words, six if you're counting the signature. https://www.johnlangdon.net/works/earth-air-fire-water/ was ruled to be uncopyrightable by the copyright office, as was a shirt that said "My daddy says I couldn't date until I'm 35" even combined with some stock art. It's so minimal I can't see any way it would be copyrightable in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Deemed copyrightable by whom? -- obviously by the OTRS team which approved the application to have that file licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Can you point me to the cases of the ambigram and the shirt? A simple web search didn't bring up anything relevant. --Crash48 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
COM:FOP Spain says: "Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places ..." But {{FoP-Spain}} says: "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares ..." It seems to me, that church is a public place, but not a thoroughfare. What do you think, is there freedom of panorama in Spanish churches? Taivo (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales.
Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.
Court case Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Sección 15ª) 147/2006 [8]
El artículo 35.2 de la LPI (RCL1996,1382) se conceptúa como un límite al derecho de autor pero dicho límite no ampara en modo alguno ni la transformación del exterior ni incluye en su protección al interior del edificio.[...] El interior de un templo, considerado éste como obra arquitectónica susceptible de tutela por la LPI como hemos señalado anteriormente, no puede considerarse, a los efectos del precepto, cualquier otra vía pública.
Article 35.2 of the LPI (RCL1996,1382) is conceptualized as a limit to copyright, but this limit does not in any way protect the transformation of the exterior or include the interior of the building in its protection. [...] The interior of a church, which is considered an architectural work subject to protection by the LPI as we have previously indicated, cannot be considered, for the purposes of the precept, any other public thoroughfare.
@Enciclopedia1993: there are numerous photographs on Commons that should not be here, images on Commons are not evidence that FOP applies in churches. There was a related discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Collections of the Museum of FC Barcelona which concluded that a museum in Spain did not qualify for FOP. We should not allow the implications of a decision to influence our interpretation of copyright laws. Even if FOP does not apply to Spanish church interiors, that would not prevent us hosting images of churches that are sufficiently old. Incidental modern objects in an image can be disregarded as de minimis. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not up to me to make final decisions. If LMLM's analysis of the legal position is correct then the file should be deleted (as the sculpture appears to be too modern to be public domain), and COM:FOP Spain should be updated. However, it is possible that LMLM has overlooked something. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
In the PDF document appears fundación Junta Constructora del Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Familia as the owner of the copyright of the church, but the most part of the churches in Spain are not property of a foundation, so the case explained in the precedent document can only be applied to the Sagrada Familia, not to the rest of the churches of the country which not depend from a foundation that owns the copyright of the buildings. The most part of the churches of Spain (modern or not) are public places and not depend from any foundation, like the one where the sculpture of San Ginés is located.Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Came across the file File:Betania in Fjellstrand, Norway.jpg today which seems to have been tagged with "missing source information" since it was uploaded 12 years ago. I'm unsure what to do about it, so hoping there's someone here who can sort it out one way or the other. TommyG (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The "missing source information" notice does not appear to be generated by a tag and is presumably generated automatically. The original uploader to English Wikipedia (User talk:Sindre) appears to have declared themself as the author, and I see no good reason to question this. {{Own assumed}} might be appropriate, but the template description is discouraging and adding this to the Source field does not make the "missing source information" notice go away. How do we fix this? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Mass deletion would not be appropriate. Deleting an otherwise free image, because some textures are used minimally in the shot, would fall under derivative works. If someone is using something like TV screen shots, and these are significantly present in the image, then that may be grounds for deletion. In comparison, someone not declaring where they got a rough brick surface texture from, when the shot is of the house they made, that's way below "significant doubt". --Fæ (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
These appear to be the cover artwork of musical scores. They probably originate from here, which is cited as a ref in the Korean Wikipedia page where one of them is used.
File:Symphony No.1.jpg contains simple text and a logo, so the issue is whether the logo exceeds the threshold of originality, see COM:TOO South Korea. The test to apply here appears to be "has own characteristics as a product of mental efforts". In my view this does, so this is a copyvio (unless permission can be established).
At the time the monument was designed (1930s), the copyright law in force was Act No. 3134 (1924) which required registration and a notice for a work to be copyright-protected. As per Section 11 and 12 of the Act, copyright may be secured either by the "registration of the claim" and "by publication thereof with the required notice of copyright" or "by the deposit, with claim of copyright, of one complete copy of such work or of a photographic print or of a photograph or other identifying reproduction thereof" to the National Library. It is also clearly stated in Sec. 11 that "No copyright in any work is considered as existing until the provisions of this Act with respect to the deposit of copies and registration of claim to copyright shall have been complied with." Presidential Decree No. 49 s. 1972 which removed the requirements was not retroactive thus work published before 1972 had to comply with the requirements of Act 3134 to be eligible for copyright protection.
I might interpret that the copyright law prevailing before November 1972 was the American colonial era-Act No. 3134 of 1924, even if the country joined the Berne Convention of 1951. Some might say that the 1924-era law is identical to the United States copyright law at that time, but with in-depth analysis by Howhontanozaz I can assume that somehow there's some difference between the two. I also doubt that a presidential proclamation during that time (before Marcos) had the power to enforce an international treaty - without a relevant law crafted in the country (which would emerge as the Marcos-era Presidential Decree No. 49 s. 1972). I might also add an input from Exec8 at the aforementioned forum:
Another ruling, on G.R No. 161295, dated June 29, 2005, it states that Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and copyrightability. By originality is meant that the material was not copied, and evidences at least minimal creativity; that it was independently created by the author and that it possesses at least same minimal degree of creativity. Copying is shown by proof of access to copyrighted material and substantial similarity between the two works. The applicant must thus demonstrate the existence and the validity of his copyright because in the absence of copyright protection, even original creation may be freely copied.
To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence. A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one element of copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership and the validity of the facts stated in the certificate. The presumption of validity to a certificate of copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant should not ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant.
Examples of 1951–72-era buildings include:
Antipolo Cathedral - 1954, Jose L. de Ocampo (d. 1995) (a DR by certain Mrcl lxmna failed)
Heads up update Putting this discussion On hold as per update from Howhontanozaz at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. To quote How's update: "Everyone, I just received a very welcome reply from the Intellectual Property Office's Bureau of Copyright. According to them, "The inclusion of a freedom of panorama provision is among the amendments being explored in the ongoing review of the present copyright law. No assurances however of its inclusion in the final bill. Rest assured however that this is in our radar." The Wikimedia community should lobby for this amendment." JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"My images must not be made part of another image"
We have a number of nice photos with a proper license but also with such a strange and nasty statement... I wonder what should be done. Perhaps somebody could contact the copyright holder and ask for clarification. Or then we could just remove the additional restrictions mentions but that might be illegal. --Palosirkka (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Most or all of these images come from the Andy Morffew Flickr account. Those I have looked at are licenced CC BY 2.0, and the "not made part of another image without permission" restriction conflicts with the 'Adapt' clause of CC BY 2.0. We could treat this as a non-copyright restriction or we could conclude that the photographer did not understand the license. You could try to contact the photographer on Flickr and ask him to remove the restriction from the Flickr pages. If the photographer does not withdraw the restriction then should we delete these images, or delete or strike through the restriction (as in File:Yawn (16250948685).jpg), or leave them as they are? Verbcatcher (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
When you contact the photographer, I suggest that you ask him to compare this image which I adapted from this image (See gallery below). Most of the work in producing the final image was done by the producer of the first image, but the value of the second image relation to the first relies on two curved lines, a bit of text and little else. Clearly the credit should be shared between the producer of the first image (NASA) and myself.
Legal adaptation of one image to give another
Original image (image of the earth - drawn by NASA artists)
Final image (definition of kilometre - original adapted by me)
Would somebody be willing to ask him? I would do it myself but I don't run non-free software, like the JavaScript required to operate Flickr. I can do it if somebody manages to dredge up some reasonable contact info, like an email addy. --Palosirkka (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I think there are good chances that he will agree. His website does not have the restriction [9]. It has an attribution requirement, not a CC license. The restriction appears on some flickr photos only. But not on his newer flickr photos. And not on his flickr profile [10]. You could use the contact form on his website. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The notice now does not appear on the Flickr pages that I have looked at, so it seems that Jeff G.'s FlickrMail has done the trick. I assume that the phrase should now be deleted from the file pages. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what exactly is missing, images are IMO properly licensed, the license template is in place and the license text appears on the file description page. What exactly is the purpose of this cat?
Thank you very much for pointing to above discussions. Guess I will follow the advice from Fæ and ignore them. Well, maybe I'll leave a comment on the cat's discussion page that a bit more context could help avoid user confusion. --Burkhard (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Pictures given to me by the owner
Hello, I have received some historical (1940s to 70s) images of a Lebanese association football player (who is now deceased) by the player's daughter. The photos she sent me are digital photos of physical photographs (she didn't scan the actual photos, she just photographed them and sent them to me). Am I free to upload them on Wikipedia? She is a woman in her 60s, and I don't feel like asking her to go through the whole procedure to upload the pictures herself. Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Did the player's daughter take the original photographs? We need permission from the original photographer (or their heirs). If she took the photographs then she should either upload them herself or send an acceptable email to the COM:OTRS system to validate the licenses. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
No, most of the photos aren't taken by her (obviously, the 1940s ones). Only one or two are contemporary (2000s, 2010s). If the photographer is unknown, what can be done (for example, for a 1940 or 1960 photo)? Nehme1499 (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The rules to apply are in COM:LEBANON. Some of the older photos might be allowable under this clause:
In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection shall expire 50 years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public.[75/1999 Article 52]
However, its unclear how you can establish that they are truly anonymous, rather than you not knowing who the photographer is, and when they were 'lawfully made available to the public'. If they were published in a newspaper before 1970 you would satisfy the publication test, but this would make the anonymity test more doubtful. I suspect that you will not be able to establish that these are allowed. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
How can one establish that the photographer is anonymous? I don't know who he is, the daughter doesn't know who he is, and surely the player didn't know who he was (they are line-up photos before the match, or photos of that nature, not personal photos for example). Nehme1499 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how Lebanese law would interpret 'anonymous', but we are cautious in these matters, see COM:PRP. If they are team line-up photos then they were probably taken either by a photographer engaged by the football club or by a press photographer. In both cases the photographer unlikely to be anonymous. Is anything helpful written on the backs of the photos? If they were published before 1949 and you knew the photographer's name then you could apply {{PD-Lebanon-Photo}}, but this appears unlikely. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Usually if the actual publication had the photographer's name. They of course could be on the back, etc. Photos published before 1949 in Lebanon should be OK, anonymous or not ({{PD-Lebanon-Photo}}). Anonymous photos published before 1970 should also be OK, but when there is a named author, 1950 and later photos are that person's lifetime, and 50 more years. "Anonymous" isn't quite the same thing as "unknown" -- if the author's name was known but has been lost by later publishings which neglected to mention the name, it's not really anonymous. Works known to be under copyright but with no way to determine or contact an owner are called "orphan works" and are an uncomfortable topic for copyright -- most countries do not have special provisions for them, and there is often resistance when they try. These might be close enough to be considered anonymous though, if we are looking at the initial publications which were distributed, and no author is mentioned. We do tend to be conservative on such things (e.g. no orphan works), and if the photos are of an entirely unknown provenance it's hard to allow them, but at some point anonymous does become a reasonable assumption to make -- it helps a lot if we know we are looking at the original publications, where the author was most likely to be mentioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. The woman has also sent me the back of the pictures (if there is text): in all cases there is just hand-written text by the (deceased) footballer explaining the year and/or location, context, etc. of what is represented. There is no author name of something of that sort. These pictures are mostly of football tours abroad, line-ups, group photos, etc. I am unsure how the footballer got these pictures; however they all seem to be "personal" pictures, not extracts from newspapers or other publications. On a similar note: let's say I have a physical picture of a relative which was taken by a professional photographer. My relative paid for it, and is in their (or my) possession. Am I (or they) able to publish it? Is that picture mine? Or does the photographer have to publish it himself on Wikipedia (which, let's say, isn't possible because the photographer is untraceable)? How do these "possession" issues work? Nehme1499 (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
In reply to 'on a similar note', professional photographers rarely transfer the copyright of their work to their retail customers. The physical picture may be yours, but you are unlikely to own the copyright and you should not add it to Commons. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The copyright ownership of commissioned works can depend on the law in each country. In older UK law, the person paying for a commissioned portrait was often the owner. I think they eliminated that in 1989, such that photographers etc. nowadays always own the copyright unless transferred via contract. Australia still has a form of the older UK law, though, and maybe some more of their former colonies still do. In the U.S., the law did not specify, and cases were decided each way for decades. In 1978, U.S. law changed such that the photographer owns the copyright, again unless specified in the contract. I don't think French copyright law (which might have been in the history for Lebanese law) had such a provision, though I could be wrong. I don't see anything like it in the Lebanon's old law either. So for example the copyright for wedding photographs typically remains with the photographer, unless there was an explicit contract otherwise. The law would allow you to make copies for yourself, and personal use and that kind of thing, but more widespread or commercial use could be more of a problem. Of course, if the author never sees them or doesn't care (often the case), then no real problem either. Commons will wait until the copyright expires though, unless the author can be found and a license given. (The publisher can give licenses for anonymous works, if they are named.)
As for these in particular, that older law did say they anything in printed form was considered published, and it sounds like the player got prints of photographs -- presumably original from the author. So if there was no name on them, I would say they would qualify for the anonymous term, and count as published at the time. For the ones from after 1949 then, and until 1970, {{PD-Lebanon}} should work. Any of the ones after 1970 would need a license from someone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
File:Michael Joseph Owens.ogg - CC0 1.0 Universal?
This audio file File:Michael_Joseph_Owens.ogg has been released as CC0 1.0 Universal by the user JohnAnkerBow based on content from a permanent link of the English Wikipedia article about Michael Joseph Owens. Is this proper? Can I do the same and release audio files of me reading Wikipedia articles as CC0 1.0 Universal so that others don't have to attribute the authors or me by using my audio file? Datariumrex (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. With this search I see there are in total 59 files marked as CC0. Hereby pinging all/most who have released spoken Wikipedia article audio files that were at some point claimed to be waived/licensed as CC0 1.0 Universal:
Already pinged JohnAnkerBow(more than 1 work of the same type)
@Back ache: If you have more than one audio recording of spoken Wikipedia articles which do not have a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License or higher, please give it/them such a license. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me13:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a scanned copy of this book on Google Books,[11], which has this map on page 40. The opening pages show that the book was published in Madras in 1861. I assume we should apply COM:INDIA, even though this pre-dates Indian independence. This is clearly public domain in India. We also need to check that it is public domain in the US, which it clearly is.
Put {{Unknown|source}} instead of Own, and {{Unknown|author}} instead of BigshotFoil9267. Then, change the licence (if it indeed is free to use). Nehme1499 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The map is claimed to be the work of Robert M. Emery (1925–1995), and is probably from the Robert M. Emery Long Island Rail Road Collection at Stony Brook University, which they purchased in 1976.[12][13] Nehme1499 has assigned a creation date of 1932 to this map. The copyright status depends on when the map was first published, see COM:US. As these were Emery's private papers the publication date is probably when the university made them available to researchers. The university may have spent a significant time cataloging the archive, so the publication date may be after they acquired the papers in 1976. There is no copyright notice on this map; could the university have attached a notice to the entire archive? Is it reasonable to assert that this was published before 1978 without a copyright notice, in which case {{PD-US-no notice}} would apply? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Army Barracks, Portoviejo photo deletion
I cut and pasted the conversation below. Hope someone can help me out.
Thank you, FitIndiaTalk✉. I am slowly reading through the various links you have posted. I would like to clarify that the picture in question is from 1911 and that I have credited the publisher and photographer in the footnote which accompanied the photo: Manabí a la Vista, Obispo Juan B. Ceriola. Guayaquil, Talleres gráficos de F. E. Rodenas, 1911. Fotografía Francisco Gámez Fernández. 185 pages. Since the subject of my draft has handwritten "This is where I was held prisoner.." on the top of the photo, I consider it most valuable for the article. I am suffering from Wikipedia link/tutorial overload, so it will take me a while to understand what I must do to make my upload conform to regulation. Can you help me out? Very sincerely yours, Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Good evening, FitIndiaTalk✉. No one has answered my query. I was wondering if you could help me. My question basically is if I can use a photo that was taken almost 120 years ago. And, if not, who do I go to to obtain permission. Thank you. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
It's difficult to be give an opinion without more context. Is this Guayaquil in Ecuador? If so then see COM:ECUADOR, which says that copyright in Ecuador runs for 70 years after the author's death. Do you know when Francisco Gámez Fernández died? If not, then 1911 is not long enough ago to be confident that he has been dead for more than 70 years ago. (If he was 21 in 1911 then he would only have been 60 in 1950.) If the photograph is protected by copyright then it must be licensed by the copyright owner: in the absence of other information we would assume that this is the heirs of the photographer. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Verbcatcher (talk). Yes, Guayaquil is in Ecuador, but I don't know when he died. In my research I have found out that he was a Colombian architect of renown. I've written to Santa Marta, Colombia, City Council to see if indeed the architect and the photographer are one and the same and information about the public use of his photos. [14]Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
All of the photos have EXIF data, but the EXIF data for the one taken in 2012 (File:Chris Sununu.jpg) lists someone other than the uploader as the copyright holder and author. Since the photos were uploaded back in 2016, they seem to be being used on quite a number of different websites other than Wikipedia. While I guess it's possible that Susunu uploaded the photos himself, the claim of "own work" does seem a bit questionable. It also seems possible that someone (perhaps representing Susunu) uploaded the photos and just used Susunu's name as their username either because they thought that's what they needed to do or just didn't realize it might create confusion. Again, even in that case, it seems that the claim of "own work" would at least need to be OTRS verified. Are these OK as licensed or should they be tagged with {{Npd}} or discussed at COM:DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at these Verbcatcher. The "Appalachian Trail" file seems to be scan of a personal photo; doesn't look like a selfie per se, but perhaps a timer was used. Most likely it was simply taken by someone who accompanied Sununu on the trip. The other photos seem less unlikely to be the "own work" of the uploader for the reasons you've given in the DR and above. Do you think it would be better to discuss the two of them in the DR since I can't actually find the photos anywhere else online prior to their upload to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I was too hasty to nominate one of these three photos on its own, however the issues with each of the pictures are significantly different and it is reasonable for them to be considered individually. I am unsure about the conventions about adding other photos to an existing deletion nomination. I think the evidence in File:Chris Sununu.jpg is clear-cut and merits a COM:SPEEDY speedy nomination as an 'apparent copyright violation' – I have not yet done this to allow for a discussion here. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyright for assistance
If I assist another person in creating a scientific graphic (with creative aspects, not just a simple diagram) by providing data, making design decisions, finding errors, etc., but only the other person does the graphic work, am I also a copyright holder of this work, or not? --Markus Prokott (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It probably depends on the country. If we are talking about the States, then it is fixation of a creative decision in a tangible medium that generates copyright. If you are the one who is making creative decisions and you are the one recording these somewhere (so you don't just say "make this blue" but you are the one who makes it blue), and also there is no transfer of the copyright, then you are the author. Datasets cannot be copyrighted, unless we are talking about something like sweat of a brow country, where a person can get copyright for something that wasn't creative, but was difficult. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 12:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I think, then I'm not the author. I'm the one just saying: "Make this blue." And I'm talking about the States and Germany. But this is (more or less) the same in that case, I think, as there is no transfer of copyright. --Markus Prokott (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Another set of eyes is requested (Congressional Dish)
Yesterday I have uploaded videos from Congressional Dish YouTube channel that dealt with the USPS issue in the States. The files are marked as CC-BY, and they are videos of officials in the course of their duties (so some may even be PD), but today I am not so sure, something looks strange, and I would like a second set of eyes to look at them here. Thank you. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 06:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I have now gone and nominated my files for deletion. Please feel free to comment there if you so wish. It is quite sad that it ended up being so, I was very happy when I found that channel. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 06:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
In the background: The platform, that was likely the place, where the "Kein Grad weiter - Klimademo von Fridays For Future, Berlin.jpg" image was taken
The image "Kein Grad weiter - Klimademo von Fridays For Future, Berlin.jpg" was made today at the Global Climate Strike in Berlin by a member of the Scientists for Future and posted on Flickr as cc-by-sa-4.0 (IPTC data). It was imported by user:TheAmerikaner and is on the german wikipedia main page. It shows not only the demonstration but also prominently the sculpture "Der Rufer". The artists (Marcks), who created the sculpture died in 1981. The foto was taken far above ground level. It is my understanding that therefore FoPgermany does not apply and neither is it de minimis, as the sculpture is not only in the center and the foreground of the image, it is also as if "Der Rufer" (the shouter) actually came to join this demonstration with its slogans "We are here, we are loud" etc. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
But the main focus is on the demonstration, not on the sculpture or the buildings in the background. It is a secondary aspect that the sculpture is shown. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Obviously I see that differently and you on the other side would not have imported the file, if you hadn't assessed it in the way you described. The file is protected for being a part of the german main page, I cannot start a DR. --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Why would {{FoP-Germany}} not apply? It and COM:FOP Germany seem to say this is okay. I understand there's a caveat that modifications to the work depicted are not permitted, but that doesn't appear to be the case here, and if that caveat makes FoP-Germany unsuitable for Commons, then there should be a wider discussion about it. clpo13(talk)19:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I understand, that you need to be on public ground for FoP to apply in Germany, not on a platform in more than 3 meters heights errected for making a live stream. It is not a public place. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The difference from the other photos of this sculpture is that this was photographed from an elevated position. Google StreetView indicates that there is no publicly-accessible structure from which this could have been taken. I initially assumed that this was taken from a drone, but the metadata shows the camera as a Nikon D5 which is a relatively heavy, so a temporary platform or a cherrypicker is more likely. COM:FOP Germany says that to qualify for freedom of panorama a photograph must have been taken from a publicly-accessible position, and not using a special tool such as a ladder. We cannot disregard the sculpture under de minimis for two reasons (see COM:DM Germany). Firstly because it is a significant part of the composition that average observer would notice. The second reason is that the sculpture portrays a person who is calling loudly and trying to be heard: this has clear parallel with the Global Climate Strike, and it is reasonable to think that the photographer deliberately included the sculpture for this reason. There is therefore a 'contextual relationship' between the sculpture and the subject of the photograph and it 'noticeably impacts the style or mood conveyed' (these are tests in COM:DM Germany). Therefore we cannot apply de minimis. The solutions appear to be to obtain the permission from the heirs of the sculptor or to blur or otherwise hide the sculpture. However, this is a valuable image so we should seek the opinion of a license reviewer who is familiar with the German rules. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Oh, I get what you mean now. As COM:FOP Germany says, "Despite the somewhat ambiguous wording, a work is located 'in' a public place if it can be observed from a public place. In other words, what needs to be public is the place from where the photograph is taken; it does not matter if the work itself is accessible to the public." (emphasis mine). That's pretty confusing and not made at all clear in the template. As that's a very different situation than most other countries with FoP, it should be noted prominently. clpo13(talk)20:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
FoP-Germany certainly should apply -- their provision makes it fine even if the statue is the primary subject of the photo. For countries without FoP, works where it's incidental to the photo (or inherently, unavoidably there) should still be allowed -- just ones focusing on the copyrighted work would be a problem. A FoP provision takes that question away completely, so that doesn't seem to be an issue for Germany. They do have the requirement that a photo be taken from a public place. A platform built on a public place... not completely sure if that qualifies, but seems odd to disallow it. If that is not a public place, then the live stream itself would be a copyright violation in many instances then. Are you allowed to take photos sitting on someone else's shoulders? A private apartment has been ruled to not be a public place, which makes sense. But to me, given that it's not focusing on the statue in the first place (it's just part of the scene), it may be OK even without a FoP provision, i.e. even if it is not from a public place. And Germany's provision makes it even more likely to be OK, so it's not something I would start a DR over. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I partly agree with the topic opener. The View on this sculpture is not available from a public place is therefore does not fall under the Freedom of panorama. But I disagree, that there is a contextual relationship as this sculpture is about torture and neither about climate change nor freedom of speech.--JTCEPB (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Funny edge case for PD-old-assumed
I just ran across this edge case for {{PD-old-assumed}} (discussion, policy attempt), that I though might be either useful as a reference or just amusing.
s:File:Edith's Preface.png is included in the 1882 children's book Under the Sun, labelled as "Edith's Preface" and immediately following the author's preface. The drawing is by the author's two year old daughter, and I imagine its threshold of originality status would depend on the mood of the judge the day the issue was adjudicated. Since the author's daughter was born in 1880 in a pma. 70 country, but with unknown death date, her copyright in it would still subsist in 2020 if she lived to be 70 or older.
The file is still kept local on English Wikisource because the "work" was published in 1882 and so is still two years off the pub. + 120 years cutoff for {{PD-old-assumed}}, but in 2022 it will be transwikied here. Both these things are potentially somewhat absurd in their own way: calling a random doodle by a two-year-old a "work" for copyright purposes just because her daddy included it as a gag in his book is squarely in "the law is an ass" territory, and being able to host it here in 2022 when there is a significant chance she lived to be 72+ years old (85 is the average, I believe) when the whole point of the defined cutoff was finding a reasonable point where the risk was minimal is self-contradictory.
In any case, I'm going to keep it local for now due to the 120 year cutoff, but transfer it in 2022 despite the theoretical possibility that there could exist an enforceable copyright in it under some circumstances, because, really, a doodle by a two year old should need to prove COM:TOO before being presumed to rise to a copyrightable "work" (COM:PRP be danged!). But regardless, a two-year-old's doodle in a book published 120 years ago is now going to be my standard example edge case for discussing this issue. :) --Xover (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
It probably is, legally speaking. But for anyone who's watched two-year-olds produce reams of these at a rate to induce fear for the forests, the idea of legislating the exclusive right to commercial exploitation of them engenders mostly incredulity. --Xover (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
You could say the same thing about selfies or pictures of food; I have hundreds of pictures of the squirrels near my home, and copyright in each and everyone. The copyright here is very thin, but it would protect literal copying.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It's clearly copyrightable. The older edition of the US Copyright Office's Copyright Compendium stated For example, a child's drawing may exhibit a very low level of artistic merit and yet be entitled to registration as a pictorial work. The newer edition simply states that artistic merit is not a part of determining copyrightability. As for the other question... it's interesting. Some of that 120 year logic was assuming that an author would get to a certain age before making works that we would likely have here, which is not true in this case. On the other hand, some of the 120 year line was based in law -- 17 U.S. Code §302(e) states: After a period of 95 years from the year of first publication of a work, or a period of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first, any person who obtains from the Copyright Office a certified report that the records provided by subsection (d) disclose nothing to indicate that the author of the work is living, or died less than 70 years before, is entitled to the benefits of a presumption that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. That does not make it public domain exactly, but is a complete defense against infringement in the U.S., so a 120-year from creation cutoff is part of the law. Obviously for U.S. purposes, being published more than 95 years ago makes that moot. The 120 year period from 1882 expired in 2003, so technically by our policy it would be allowed now (since it's now been 138 years from creation). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
"This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status."
Hello everyone,
I'm having some difficulties figuring out an issue of mine. An image I uploaded has been flagged for deletion due to "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." However, the image is from a public university staff profile and there are no terms of use for files uploaded to their website. Since the image is publicly used and distributed to various sources, what action should I take? The image can be found here.
Thanks! I'll transfer the file to Commons now. I was thinking the image was below the TOO, but I was a bit paranoid about the copyright issue. FunnyMath (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyright of screenshots of POTUS tweets?
It is clear that POTUS (and US congresspeople) tweets are works of the US government. However I haven't found any discussions of the copyright status of tweet screenshots.
I can only find two existing tweet screenshots on Commons, they contain text/profile picture only, and do not invoke PD-USGOV. Here's one of them:
My take from what has been kept on Commons, and what has been said in discussions, is that POTUS tweet screenshots fall into one of three categories:
A. tweet with text only: PD-USGOV
B. tweet containing attached photo with no attribution but very likely generated by staff, and no obvious copyrightable objects: PD-USGOV
C. tweet containing photo with possible copyrightable objects (such as a screengrab of a TV news show displaying content and chyrons): this strikes me as questionable, and since I don't see any examples of these, I presume they would be judged and deleted as not PD.
Is my take correct? And with category A, is it a requirement that the tweet bird icon be cropped out of the screenshot, as was done in the existing file? Dennis the Peasant (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with A, but I wouldn't be so sure to automatically assume B. These days, the copyright awareness of those working for politicians doesn't seem to be very high or something they worry about very much, particularly if they feel that to worry about such things is going to make them less able to do what their boss wants them to do. I'm not just referring to any one particular politician, but just what seems to be going on in general. I think C might depend upon COM:DM and maybe COM:DW; if the tweet shows some of those things you mentioned in the background, then maybe their presence would be considered "incidental"; however, if the tweet is just bascially a screen grab from a news program or something that incorporates copyrighted content created by others into a new dervative work (i.e. a video motage) , then I think that would be one of the cases mentioned in en:WP:PD#US government works where the official Twitter account is more "hosting" someone else's copyrighted content and "using" it under en:fair use, than actually being the original generator of the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick and informative replies. Clearly the border between B and C is a bit hazy. It seems to me that all screenshots of tweets which are "retweets without comment" are in C as there is no generated content (except for the act of retweeting, which is not visual).
I uploaded a screen grab that is closer to the borderline. Here, Trump did generate some graphic content by creating a screen grab. However, he did not add any text content of his own. B or C? I could see either categorization.
If C, what if he had included a sentence or more of text, would that move it into B?
Finally the bird, what does it do to the copyright status? In this case, it seems to me like incidental background.
I would consider that tweet you uploaded a screenshot copyvio unless it can be shown that FOX has released the show under a free license, which seems highly unlikely. It seems you should request it be deleted per COM:CSD#G7 before someone tags it with {{Copyvio}}. As for the Twitter bird logo, I wouldn't really consider it incidental but it could be blurred out if necessary.This next part is perhaps beyond the scope of Commons, but I'm not sure why there's a need to upload screenshots of POTUS tweets. Do you want to add them to some Wikipedia article? Are you aware of en:WP:TEXTASIMAGES? Tweets can be considered to be a reliable source per en:WP:BLPSELFPUB and en:WP:RS/P#Twitter in some cases; so, you might be able to just cite the tweet itself. Moreover, if the tweet has received covered in en:WP:SECONDARY reliable sources (perhaps because it contains some false information), then you can cite those secondary sources instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have requested speedy deletion of the test image.
I am considering uploading screenshots of POTUS tweets because I am interested in archiving the tweets at Wikisource, and tweets often contain information beyond text. Lists of screenshots alone don't allows one to find a particular tweet by searching. Having the text and (when warranted and possible) a screenshot seemed to me to be a good approach to an archive, and so I thought I would explore the copyright aspects of screenshots. Dennis the Peasant (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded a couple of images to Commons that I later realised don't have the right license for that, and now I want to get them deleted. I know that there's a couple of templates I could use for that, but what I want to avoid is having a bot or user or something leave a message on my talk page about these images being deleted. My question is, how do I go about this in a way that's minimally embarrassing for me? Can I contact a mod about this directly on their talk page? --213.125.14.19407:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi IP 213.125.14.194. There's no record of you uploading any files with this account; so, if you used another one, you probably should log in and use it to request that files be deleted. If you uploaded the files with in the past week, you can probably just tag each file for "author requested speedy deletion" per COM:CSD#G7; if, however, you uploaded the files more than seven days ago, you probably will need to nominate the files for deletion per COM:DR. If there are multiple files involved and uploaded them all, you probably can combine them all into the same DR discusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I uploaded the images on a different account, and I'm pretty sure they all qualify for speedy deletion anyway. There's not really a discussion to be had on whether they should be kept or not. I just don't want a notif about this on my talk page, that's basically all. --213.125.14.19408:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
(via Google Translate): I found kaiju illustrations (Родан.jpg, Барагон.jpg, Ґодзілла проти Біоланте.jpg, and other) by Yasushi Torisawa. They all are under CC BY 2.0 license. They were published in a Japanese magazine, whose name I forgot, but if necessary, I can find the name. I found another illustration by Yasushi Torisawa: [17] (First illustration is by Yasushi Torisawa). Nowhere is it stated that this illustration is under license CC BY 2.0, but it was published in the same magazine and created by the same artist. Many illustrations by Yasushi Torisawa from this magazine are available on Wikimedia Commons under a free license It is logical that this illustration is also under license CC BY 2.0. Can I upload it to Wikimedia Commons? --Дейноніх (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. The three files you have linked (File:Родан.jpg, File:Барагон.jpg, File:Ґодзілла проти Біоланте.jpg) all look like copyright violations which should not be on Commons. They have free licences on Flickr, but there is no evidence that Yasushi Torisawa has agreed to these licenses. They were uploaded from the bigdogLHR Flickr account,[18] which does not appear to be controlled by Yasushi Torisawa. I can see no free license in the source page for the illustration you propose to upload; even if there were a free licence we would be unlikely to accept a licence in a blog posting of this type. We should only accept a free licence from a webpage that is clearly controlled by the magazine's publishers or by Yasushi Torisawa, or possibly one that is controlled by a reputable organisation such as a major media company. If the illustration is sufficiently old it might be public domain, see COM:Japan. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Herbarium specimens at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Until recently, the licensing of the images in the online herbarium catalogue of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, was ambiguous. Although the Terms of Use for Kew Science's data and resources says that images within datasets are licensed by default under the Creative Commons Attribution license, the herbarium catalogue website itself hasn't been updated in ages (it still uses the old Kew logo even) and says "If you would like to use images or data from the Kew Herbarium Catalogue for publication purposes, then please contact us to request permission." I emailed herbcatkew.org to clarify this discrepancy. I received a reply from Sarah Phillips, who is the Digital Collections Research Leader for RBG Kew:
When trying to upload images from the Public.Resource.Org account on Flickr (such as this image), an error message pops up saying "Unfortunately, no images from this Flickr account can be uploaded on this site." Is there any specific reason why? Nehme1499 (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
How do I know which of the images are from Smithonian, and which aren't? And if they actually are from Smithsonian, how do I know which are free to use and which aren't? Nehme1499 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Studio Ghibli has released hundreds of film stills for "free use". No official copyright release that I can find. Google Translate gives the text as "Feel free to use it within the bounds of common sense," whatever that means. Probably not enough of a release for our purposes, but I've been wrong before. Powers (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Definitely seems like an extra name. Plenty of anime I've seen have multi-name copyright notices. I'd rather just act like this is a non-free license, due to a lack of specificity over its terms. That, and I doubt that commercially lucrative works like this would be knowingly put under a free license (compare the Ubisoft and Bandai-Namco uploads and deletion requests). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)15:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Image in a book published in the U.S. before 1925
Hi. We know that the book Jane's Fighting Ships (published in 1919 by McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York) is in public domain, but does that mean pictures printed in the book are free to use? I want to see if I can upload a picture attributed to "Lieut. Frewin R.N." in the book, or any picture without credit. Pahlevun (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
They are definitely free from the USA copyright. However if they originate in another country, they may remain under copyright there. Ruslik0 (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Thanks. I found out that in the same year, the book was also published by Sampson Low, Marston & Company Limited in the United Kingdom. I assume that a picture with a known author may be protected by copyright in the UK, while another with unknown photographer is free. Am I right? Pahlevun (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
Keep Category:Saurier-Erlebnispfad (Georgenthal): this is clearly on public ground, you only pay if you want a guided tour [3]. --El Grafo (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Support that we do not use old licenses on new uploads. We have no use for it and it is possible for uploaders to pick another license. It is not listed on MediaWiki:Licenses for example so my guess is that if anyone use it on new uploads it's a typo or its a file that is transferred from some other wiki.
Oppose at least until an alternative way to release the work uder a copyleft licence without requiring attribution will begin to exist. Perhaps the "experts in licenses" can help to come up with one before making proposals for banning licences. By the way "grandfathering" is only necessary after you ban a licence. So for not Grandfathering is impossible because CC-SA is a valid licence. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
On hold as per update from Howhontanozaz at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. To quote How's update: "Everyone, I just received a very welcome reply from the Intellectual Property Office's Bureau of Copyright. According to them, "The inclusion of a freedom of panorama provision is among the amendments being explored in the ongoing review of the present copyright law. No assurances however of its inclusion in the final bill. Rest assured however that this is in our radar." The Wikimedia community should lobby for this amendment." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Original image (image of the earth - drawn by NASA artists)
Final image (definition of kilometre - original adapted by me)
![[1]](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Journal?type=&user=&page=Fichier%3AMort.jpg&wpdate=&tagfilter=){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_c_1860.jpg&curid=41496660&diff=450108407&oldid=415740472){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Happy days! Good detective work and saved us a bunch of cute pix. In this time we need all the good news we can get. Thank you to Verbcatcher, Jeff G., Martinvl and Asclepias! --Palosirkka (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Resolved.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Twitter_-_%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D1%82_2020-05-29.png)
kew.org to clarify this discrepancy. I received a reply from Sarah Phillips, who is the Digital Collections Research Leader for RBG Kew: