Commons talk:PD files/Archive 1

File:EndurancePic.jpg

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The alleged uploader of this file on en wiki does not exist. How to verify it? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked w:en:Special:Contributions/Abroomhe. He logged in for one day only in 2006, he edited only one article, w:en:HMS Endurance (1967), and uploaded only this image. Sv1xv (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. So he may have taken it but we don't know and can't contact him. I did a google image search but could not find it. So it's possible. Thoughts? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

AGF. Uploader exists, stated it was his own image, released it as {{PD-self}} himself,[1] and there's no contradicting evidence. So why question this image at all? Lupo 06:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted the request as a test case for transfers from Wikipedia to Commons. Soon the image on Wikipedia shall be deleted and some of the evidence about its copyright status will be lost. Sv1xv (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's reasonable to question a photo by an individual that seems to require special setup (in this case, a well-positioned boat). His characterization of himself as "ex Royal Navy" in the Author field lends this some credence. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons I posted this here was to determine in this early stage of PD review's existence just what our standards will be and where we draw the line on cases such as this. I'll leave this here for a little more input. It seems to me at this point that the consensus is it's PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am more suspicious if an uploaded photo is of professional quality or if the photographer is a professional. If we simply assumed good faith on such an occassion, what is to prevent someone from scanning a photo from a niche publication, upload it under an account (named as the photographer), and never edit under the account again? The impetus is on the project to offer materials that are offered freely, not stolen goods. For this case though, judging from the angle at which the subject is focused on, I believe the photo is taken on board a Lynx helicopter from the Endurance. The photographer is either a Royal Navy personnel or one of the research crew. Whether Alan Broomhead is indeed the uploader (and if he indeed is the photographer) is a matter of faith (at least it is not a joke name).[2][3] The photo's texture (cross-hatched patterns) suggest it was a scan, possibly of a matte photograph; at least it is not from a newspaper or gloss-page magazine. All in all, evidence suggest the uploader could be who he claimed to be. I would not oppose others from AGF for this photo (hence letting it stay on the servers), but as I said earlier, it would be on a case-by-case basis. Maybe one of those "file was nominated for deletion but concensus agreed for it to be kept" templates (like w:Template:Oldffdfull) would be better served for those images. Jappalang (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Alan Broomhead's claim of authorship is mainly supported by the fact that the photo he uploaded has not showed up on any official or private web site. Even my own photo of HMS Endurance has been used somewhere [4], without attribution. Sv1xv (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it showed up at the HMS Endurance Tracking Project and this personal site in reduced form. Something just popped into my mind. If a Royal Navy personnel took the picture, should it not be under UK Crown Copyrights (note the 50p stamp on the personal site show a remarkable resemblance to the photo as well)? Jappalang (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If your image was used without attribution, should you not remind the site (HMS Endurance Tracking Project) of it (politely first)? Jappalang (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I did, using an on-line contact form. [5]]

Sv1xv (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And today I received a reply from them, asking for specific instructions.

Sv1xv (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Today they added the attribution and sent me a note. Sv1xv (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's Crown Copyright, it would not be PD, at least not yet. Are Brit gov pics Crown Copyright even if the taker was not an official photog for the Navy? As to these "I took it myself" cases, there is a degree of AGF here, the question is, where do we draw the line? I think we have to do it case by case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe being an official photo for the Navy would not suffice in this case. The only way that this is PD is if it is a self taken/released image, as claimed. This is a good example of the borderline cases we will be dealing with. I don't think the similarity to the 50p stamp is cause for concern (as there are some differences, i'd put it down to coincidence). However the author removed a "(self)" label from after the author, which begs the question "Why?". I believe this is the "Alan Broomhead", and it says he is a Royal Navy Aircraft engineer, so I think the person who took the photo is Alan Broomhead. Now the only question is did the wiki account belong to Broomhead. The user name suggests so, as does the editing profile, article of self interest. All things considered, in this case I would probably give it the green light as being public domain. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand this correctly, unlike America where a US GOV photo is PD, in Britain they're not? So if this guy took it FOR the Navy, it's not PD but Crown Copyright but if he took it for himself it is PD? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For Crown Copyright it would depend on the age of the photo, but yes you are right in that is not automatically PD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Summary

1. Alan Broomhead is a real person who has served in the Royal Navy as a helicopter engineer.
2. Abroomhe, a contributor on Englishi WP claiming to be Alan Broomhead, uploaded the photograph of HMS Endurance, claimed copyright on it and released it to the public domain. The same contributor has only contributed information about the allocation of helicopters to HMS Endurance.
3. The image uploaded on English WP is a scan of a color print and of reasonable size, with a side ratio of approx. 15:10. It was not scanned from a magazine or other printed material (postcard, brochure).
4. Until this day the photograph has never appeared elsewhere, and has not been published by the Crown. Only exception is a lower quality copy by the HMS Endurance Tracking Project, who also display another Wikipedia picture of the same ship.

My view is that we may accept the authorship claim and the susequent release to the public domain as genuine. Sv1xv (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that. This isn't the strongest case but I can support putting our PDr tag on it. And we should copy this whole thread to the image talk page. Any more input? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to do so (copy thread to image talk page) and implement a switch in the {{PDreview}} template that can point to the talk page and thread. Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask Rocket000, the coder. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done No further comments during the last few days, so I added {{PDreview}} and I am copying the discussion to the talk page. Sv1xv (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Athens-FIR.jpg

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have included some background info in the talk page of the file. The author original uploader claims the picture is free of copyright. I have not found it online but I suspect it is a copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an official map and unless it can be shown to be PD, I think we should call it non-free. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As the uploader admits, the current "Attribution" license tag is wrong. I shall replace it with a tentative {{PD-because|}}, until we decide how to deal with it. Sv1xv (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a scan of a map, which has some routes marked with a highlighter pen. Greek copyrights in Commons:Licensing state that federal text (declarations and laws) are in public domain, but has no clarity for federal art. The map of their Flight Information Region (FIR) should thus be copyrighted by the government for 70 years since publication. Even if the map has been released to public domain, the flight routes are given (drawn) by individual companies and associations. Therefore a map of their routes are copyrighted. Thus, it is very unlikely that this chart is in public domain (it might be freely distributed to airline pilots and private fliers, but that does not mean it is in public domain). Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need to un-PD this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rlevse. I would like to add that there is no indication this chart is/was published by the central government (not federal- Greece is not a federal state), as it is not marked with the Hellenic C.A.A. logo. If it was attached to a circular or similar text, especially if published in the government Gazette, it would be free. But this one is possibly a drawing by a private firm.

On a related subject, the term "public domain" does not exist in some european legal systems. The greek law states that "The protection afforded under this Law shall not apply to official texts expressive of the authority of the State, notably to legislative, administrative or judicial texts...". This is the reason the template "PD-self" has the clause "In case this is not legally possible: ". Sv1xv (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Result

The review has failed to prove that the image is in the Public Domain. Also it was not created by the original uploader but is a scan of a chart from an unknown source. Lacking a "PD review failed" template, I mark the file as "No source" {{Subst:nsd}} and {{PD review result}}. Sv1xv (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tks, I've copied to the image talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Eisenhower 68-40-67.jpg

This is a tough one that I am not certain over... http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/gallery10.php says it is a public domain image, but the site later claims it may not be...[13] Eisenhower Library admits to hosting copyrighted images.[14][15] If they are taken on the 1952 campaign trail, the photos might not be taken by federal employees but by journalists or Eisenhower's own aides (are the latter federal employees)? Jappalang (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

For everyone's info, Nixon and Eisenhower made very few joint appearances during the 1952 campaign. That narrows it down, and the call signals on the radio mics make it clear this was the rally in Wheeling, WV on September 24, 1952, the day after the Checkers Speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Great detective work. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Very unlikely for this one to be work by or on behalf of the US federal government. Sv1xv (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good powers of observation. I don't think this is likely to be PD, so it should probably be failed. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Failed and brought to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eisenhower 68-40-67.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg

Brought up by request, I doubt it can be public domain, because it came from Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, which stated that some photos are copyrighted.[16] Nixon's Library also states that his pre-Presidential photos are copyrighted.[17] Jappalang (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just found that we used to have a {{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}}, but it has been deprecated due to this issue (ref: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio). Jappalang (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This need to be non=-PD'd and the link to that copyright statement posted on the file page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and think it needs failing. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Failed and sent to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove the PD review pending cat

Reviewers, please remember to remove the "PD files for review" category when you place the final tag on the file, whatever the result is, this temp cat needs to be removed. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Flyvevåbnet-OF4.gif

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This one claims to be a modification of Image:OF3_RAF_Squadron_Leader.gif, which is copied from [19]. That source is Copyright (2009) International Encyclopedia of Uniform Insignia Association. Therefore the current image is derivative work of a copyrighted artwork and the uploader has no right to release it under a PD license.

However, someone may claim that the drawing is very simple and consists of geometric shapes plus white color grading which is automatically created by most programs.

My view is that File:Flyvevåbnet-OF4.gif fails PD-review. Do you agree?

Sv1xv (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fail. It's a rank insignia. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to understand. Does that mean, that all rank insignia should be deleted or is it because it i copied from somewhere (or at least the ones from Category:Badges of rank of the Royal Air Force that is copied)? In an other way: If I or someone else make a new copy from scratch would that do? --MGA73 (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I said rank just so people know what it is. The problem is it's a derivative of a copyrighted image. Now American military ranks are PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Naval Historical Center

It should be "Likely PD source" instead of a confirmed source ("Known PD source). They state that it is to their best knowledge that the files are PD (similar to the advice the Library of Congress gives for the "no known restriction"). The questionable images on the NHC are those that are donated (without specification of authorship or by commercial entities), which run into problems with first publication or death of author (since the images likely may not created by federal employees). Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also related is the deprecation of {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}} (ref:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC). Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That deprecation was three years ago. See today's info which says "2. All information on this site is in the public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." Sounds pretty clear PD to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... the info page was updated 14 August 2006 (which was before the deprecation in October 2006). The Online Library page is last updated 25 February 2009 and still bears the "To the best of our knowledge, the pictures referenced here are all in the Public Domain, and can therefore be freely downloaded and used for any purpose." This is somewhat repeated on the Scope page, which is last updated on 05 February 2009. If, however, the images are all accepted as public domain material, with what do we tag those images that were donated by non-federal employees and may not be published before 1923? Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that all depends on if it it's decided they are PD. If they are accepted as PD, then they should be tagged PD. All three places show that the intent of the site is to post only PD material. This is a good case for just where do we draw the line. I've tagged some pics, not any NHC ones yet, that are rock solid PD just now -- pics from 1800's and one form a gov site taken by an Army photog. See our category for tagged pics. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the NHC should be added. The NHC may be a source of PD images of U.S. naval vessels, but much of their materials on e.g. German warships must be considered German works that would still be copyrighted in Germany. For instance NH 71318 or NH 86214, or in fact any of the Tirpitz photos. These images may be PD-US, but that's entirely irrelevant here at the Commons, as these are not U.S. works. Lupo 12:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll place it in the "likely" category with an explanation. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

All PD?

Would all PD files need a "reviewed" tag, or only those that are questioned? -- Deadstar (msg) 11:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

PD review files are not REQUIRED to have a PD Review tag. Think of it more as "insurance". — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

George Bain collection

There might be issues with this collection as the LoC uses the "no known restrictions" as their "99% sure no problems will arise from the use of this image" card. Personally, I would consider pre-1923 images in their collections as PD (by their word that they have been published in the news), and those that are marked as copyright expired. However, it seems several Commons users (and administrators) have approved of {{PD-Bain}}, so the concensus lies in the direction of its validity (ref: w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2009#Nassau class battleship). Hopefully this clears up the situation with the license. Jappalang (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of this. IMHO I think we can consider Bain files PD. Is this OK? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite my personal tastes to exclude Bain photos that are not marked as pre-1923 or expired copyrights, concensus seems to point the template as valid for all the collection's images. Unless its validity is overturned through concensus, we should live with it. If an individual image is proven to be non-PD through evidence, then it would have to be deleted from here on the basis of that proof. Jappalang (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

National Archives

To head off certain arguments, note the deprecated {{PD-USGov-NARA}} and its recommendations on how to classify the licenses for files in the Archives (ref: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-NARA). Jappalang (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Free media resources

Are we just creating another of this list (albeit moderated)? Free media resources is currently a mess and quite a few of its links are not providers of "free content". Jappalang (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Did not know of that list. If it's a mess, let's not mimic it. I'd only like to see solid recources here, sites like LOC and NHC, while not all of their stuff is PD, most is and they have good reputations. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

DefenseImagery.mil

As stated, this repository hosts several images that lack clear information for public domain. Notable examples are photos of the EP-3 involved in the collision over Hainan. These photos were taken by a Lockheed Martin employee;[20] some of the shots on DefenseImagery reflect this, but others (duplicates) indicate them as Unknown. An aerial shot of another EP-3, File:EP-3E VQ-1 2001.jpg lists its creator as Unknown at DefenseImagery, but was clearly attributed to the Navy in the archived link. The discrepancies back up the caution DefenseImagery advised in their terms of use. Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Are you just mentioning this or did someone improperly use the PDR tag? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, just pointing out specific examples here, in case someone brings up an opinion that "the site hosts only photos by military personel". Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Splitting up by tag?

I was thinking, because it takes different background and expertise to evaluate e.g. PD-USGov vs. PD-Art, it might make sense to split up the PD review category by PD tag. What do you think? Dcoetzee (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's a valid PD image, it's a valid PD image, so I'm not sure the tag needs to be different. However, we could denote what subfields reviewers are specialists in on Commons:PD_files/reviewers#List_of_PD_reviewers — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Perry-Castañeda Library

Good place for maps, but there are some copyrighted maps there. Note that {{PCL}} has been deprecated in light of this. As for their Portrait Gallery, so far what I have seen are in public domain due to their publication before 1923 (through the "SOURCE" link on each page). Commons has {{PD-PCL-portraits}} for their images, but I think it should be deprecated in favor of {{PD-old}} and {{PD-1923}} since the sources are provided readily. Jappalang (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Images that fail PD review

Basically if an image fails a PD review (like the example above seems to):

a) Should "we" as PD reviewers nominate those images for deletion; and

b) Do we have some template like {{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-fail-recent}} to use, that would also possibly categorise failed images.

Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, Rocket000 did our coding, I'll ask him. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In most cases a failed PD review leads to a result of "Incomplete licensing information" {{Nld}}, "Missinog source" {{Nsd}}, "Missing permission" {{Npd}}, or even {{Copyvio}}, which are already covered in Commons:Deletion policy. So the new template "PD review failed" should somehow integrate with the existing deltetion tags. In addition, an image which fails PD review should go in a special Category, pending deletion or whatever. Sv1xv (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

General question about "non-profit" claims

I have seen this on a few government websites. For a specific example, this image has the message:

"You may use any of these photographs for your personal use (school projects, educational activities, etc.). As a courtesy, we encourage you to credit the photographer. NONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS MAY BE USED FOR PROFIT!"

However, {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}} and their statement suggest it is public domain. Wikipedia requires that there is not a "no-commercial" tag for Flickr images. Doesn't stating that the image "may not be used profit" suggest they still have a say about the image, and therefore it isn't properly released into the public domain? I'm pretty sure the image is PD, so have I misunderstood something, or is it possibly a scare tactic by the website to prevent the image appearing everywhere? Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to help them (Forest Service) a bit here. They are asking people to donate their photos altruistically, hence the moral duty to avoid exploitation on these donations.[21] However, they conflict themselves by, like you said, declaring information on their site as public domain,[22] and telling people to donate copyright free images.[23] Perhaps an inquiry/feedback should be sent to them to clarify the matter (get them to update their site or something). Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of websites that offer public domain images try to impose illegitimate restrictions on their use for a variety of reasons (exploitation as an income source, wanting to be the go-to source on the Internet for the images, and so on). It's worth carefully evaluating their claims, and preparing for any ensuing hostility. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just saw Commons talk:Copyright tags#U.S. National Register of Historic Places images: "Never mind - the Park Service has indicated to me that they don't have releases, and despite the public notice on their individual files and the blanket notice on the website, they cannot actually release the images into the public domain." I think it is a similar case to Forest Service here, the agency asked for users to donate their photos, but ultimately has no accounts of the uploaders' surrendering their rights. Jappalang (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just PD?

I noticed this which makes me ask a question I've been thinking about for a while. Are we just reviewing public domain images? Images tagged with CreativeCommons, GFDL, etc. do not claim to be public domain, because they are not. Copyleft images are different to public domain images (about), but do people think we should also be reviewing these as well. The same arguments stands for why these need reviewing like PD images, it is just we would need different templates (or make the current ones adaptable) if we were to start reviewing these types of licenses as well. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 18:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually CC and GFDL are own works licensed by the uploader or stuff copied from Flickr. Special cases are covered by Flickr reviews or OTRS. I don't expect to have too many such images for PD review. However, we may adapt the templates for these types. Sv1xv (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We'd have to change our page names which I really don't want to do, or have "sister" pages for them. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Other license reviews

Besides PD files and Flickr files, we also have files imported from other sites and claimed to be under a free license. Examples would be files from Panoramio (some of the images there have acceptable CC licenses, e.g. File:Okinako haitzartea.jpg) or from ipernity (e.g. File:Chateau Foix kurtsik.jpg). For the time being, I've created {{LicenseReview}} for these, but it sure would be good if we had a process similar to the automated Flickr review for these. (The template could also use some autotranslation, if anyone wants to do that—I judged it too complicated to tackle.) Lupo 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Scope of project

The scope of this project is Public Domain. In the REO image thread immediately above and elsewhere, the question of allowed CC and GFDL images has come up. I also just found this image: File:Brown pelican - natures pics.jpg which has a CC tag, tagged as PD Reviewed. This is clearly wrong as it is not a PD image. It may be a free image, but it is not PD. All this brings up at least three issues:

1. Do we want to start reviewing any image
2. If we expand our scope, we'd need more templates made so we don't have the brown pelican image problem
3. renaming the project

— Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is a great project, so I hope for a wider scope. I understand, that the lack of templates can be a problem. You could either make new template as you need them, or you could make a "unisex" template. In my view almost all sorts of files can need a review. Then there is the amount of work. Well in the long run it should be less work to check the file once and for all instead of 25 people looking and checking as they see the image. --MGA73 (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, if we restrict ourselves to review images that are tagged with PD licenses, we should either:

• have a new parameter—rejected—in {{PDreview}} to signify a requested GFDL or CC tagged image is out of our scope, or
• simply remove the requested image from the category.

After reading the above, I am inclined towards the view that tagging CC and GFDL as a public domain image (PDreview passed) would be inappropriate. Jappalang (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The photo itself can't be tagged PD. It would have to be in a subsection where it is clearly labeled that the license (and review tag) only apply to the pictured object, and not the photo. This is often done with two tags, one labeled "Photo" and a PD tag labeled "Statue" or something like that. This is one argument for having a separate "Licensing" section outside of the Information template; a lot of info can pile up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Derivative works are always complicated... in those, you have the original copyright, and then you have the additional copyrightable material added by the second author. The original author has the right to prevent the distribution of that derivative work, so the copyright on the original is still very important. So, the question is do you accept images where it is only the original copyright portion which is under PD review (the photo itself, as the derivative work, would also have to be licensed but that is usually not a dispute). This is the case for the REO image above. There are tons of complications around them (such as freedom of panorama, de minimis, and what qualifies as a derivative work), and it's probably not appropriate to encompass all of that here -- otherwise it may be just duplicating Commons_talk:Licensing or regular deletion requests (although the naming of "review" does seem much nicer and less antagonistic than "deletion").

On the other hand you could go in the direction of having this project validate PD status, or other licenses, where the documentation only really exists on single websites, and therefore which may go away at any time. A lot of works (such as the REO image above) can realistically be researched at any time, as there is a lot of information around the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Scope or not, if you're reviewing a file that is not PD but claimed to be under some free license, and it passes your review, why not just use {{LicenseReview}}? C.f. #Other license reviews above... Lupo 06:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Firstly, sorry for tagging the image inappropriately. I completely agree we should not be tagging CC etc. as PD. I do however think we should have a capability to review all images. I mentioned this before and still think it is a good idea, but we would need new (sister?) pages etc. LicenseReview isn't all covering at the moment because it requires a url for a source, so I believe another template (or adaptation) would be needed. Hopefully we can get this going as well. We can either change this project to a kind of all encompassing "License review" page, with different review categories, templates etc. or try and make a similar parallel page. Either is fine with me but I think we should do one of these options. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 09:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with reviewing any free image and tagging it, but I think we should do it under "sister" pages and with tags specific to that license. Rocket000 did our PD templates, which were rather complicated he said. I think he would not mind doing more for us. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Category / template for verification

I just nominated File:Serbian children from KZ camp Jasenovac.jpg for review. After that I found out, that there is a whole category with similar files Category:PD-Yugoslavia. First step should be to verify the template / the statement and if that is OK, then the files could be checked. You could also look here Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/11#Image:Funeral_of_President_Tito_on_08_05_1980.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The template was apparently created during this deletion request. It has been questioned at Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 12#Template:PD-Yugoslavia, Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 17#.7B.7BPD-Yugoslavia.7D.7D, Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 17#Template:PD-Yugoslavia, and has also been seriously questioned at en: Template_talk:PD-Yugoslavia; the last one is the only place where some defense of it was raised. It sounds like it would be limited to state-produced material only, and even that is cloudy. I really don't know. It is possible that such works would be considered simultaneously published in all successor nations, which may mean the shortest of all those those terms apply (per Berne Convention). There was some agreement about dividing the assets of Yugoslavia but I haven't really looked into it, and I'm not sure it talked about copyright. I also have no idea what the copyright regime under the old Yugoslavia was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons:PD files#Determination of public domain in US (and copyrights)

I would like to invite comments and corrections for this section.[24] Should PD files have this section? Jappalang (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Very usefull. After all possible cases are covered, it must be drawn in flowchart form. This is a subject of general interest to most users and should eventually become part of Commons:Licensing. Sv1xv (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected some details and added others. Please take a look. Jappalang (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

4 Yugoslav images

Anyone familiar with Yugoslav PD? There are 4 from World War II in "Category:PD files for review" right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also see Commons_talk:PD_files#Category / template for verification. --MGA73 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am of a mind to fail them all. What is this 1998 law the uploaders are claiming of? Even if believed, "published in all school books" in which year is a boggling question. If published in 1970, then that photo's copyright is extended to 2020. Regardless, the verifiable piece of law comes with the Succession agreement. In that event, only documents of Yugoslavian laws and official rulings are in public domain. Rest of the works have to abide with the successor state laws. Since we are given no authors, let us treat it as anonymous and since no verifiable date of first legal publishing is given, then the pictures have not been published. Circulation of the photos on the web by the copyright holders in this case can be treated as first publishing (but the uploaders fail to even state the official site), which in this case can make the year from 1990 to now, certainly qualifying the anonymous photos as still in copyright. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Suggest copy this to their talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, tagged as failed with this to the talk page. Ditto with other WWII Yugoslav pics that were tagged for review. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Samuel Reshevsky versus the World.JPG

The photo is from France taken by New York photographer(s) "Kadel & Herbert". Is PD-1923 valid? I would really like to know more about "Kadel & Herbert" because the Internet is fully of interesting photos with this signature. Specifically, it would be interesting to know when he/they died. I'm suspecting he/they were working for New York times, but I could not verify this. Nillerdk (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be a New York photo agency, so first publication in the U.S. is definitely plausible. Doubt they were working for the Times; they probably just distributed photographs to them (and presumably others). One of the partners was George Kabel, who apparently started out working in the Bain News Service (the Library of Congress has a 1909 photo taken by him but copyright Bain). He may have written a 1939 book on airbrushing photographs (someone of the same name did, anyways). I can't find much more info at the moment though. It would seem in general to be a U.S. corporate copyright though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether the photo was published before it popped up in the NYT online store. It is not inconceivable that this might not have been so—another better angle shot was obtained, another "bigger" story was running on that day, etc. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Given NYT is selling this photo, they at least THINK they own it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is PD, like it almost certinaly is (in the U.S. at least), they have every right to sell it. The NYT should not have a copy in the first place if it was never published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, why would they not have a copy if it was never published? If the photographer is their staff (and not freelance), it could be the property of the company, right (like the archives of unpublished National Geographic photos)? Jappalang (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty apparent that they were not NYT staff. Kadel and Herbert were two different people; they obviously had their own company (their photos show up in lots of different publications of the era). They would have had to sold/distributed the photo to the NYT, which would be publication. If it was NYT staff then yes publication is a question, but they would name an individual photographer (or none). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... silly me; I deserve a trout, methinks... Jappalang (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But the photo was taken in France. Does French legislation have nothing to say? Nillerdk (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Berne Convention defines country of origin as country of first publication. If the photo agency sent the photos back to the U.S., then that would be the country of origin for Commons purposes. The only thing we know is that it was published in a U.S. publication, presumably at the time, which makes first publication in the U.S. quite plausible. It would seem that it would at least be simultaneously published in the U.S., which (for a U.S. company) should be enough to assume PD status for us. If it was simultaneously published in France, they may use their term rather than the shorter term, although without an actual photographer named (instead just the company) it may be expired there too as Anonymous-EU. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a great answer to my question (I wasen't aware of the definition in the Berne convention). I think you can mark it as reviewed now. Nillerdk (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Another note is that Kadel & Herbert were American-based photographers.[25] Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This needs resolved still. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing in summary, the photos were taken in France by an independent studio—Kadel & Herbert—that is based in US. The studio sold a copy of their work to NYT. Whether NYT published it in their paper becomes irrelevant. By selling the photo to the paper publishers, Kadel & Herbert has effectively published their work, so PD passed. Jappalang (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Shoho damage.jpg

Here we have a diagram taken from a government document, so it should be a fairly simple open and shut case, right? Except the US government copied the sketch from a Japanese work. Undoubtably it is public domain (I think). The issue is should it be {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, or {{PD-Japan-organization}}? Anyone? Jappalang (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Listed both PD tags and tagged as passed PD review. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what makes you think they copied a Japanese sketch? I would read that as if they made the sketch from Japanese descriptions of where bombs etc. hit the ship (otherwise there would be no need for translation)... Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of "Taken from translated Japanese Naval Documents" would be that the diagram was taken from the original Japanese documents as is and placed on the translated copy. If they based it on descriptions, I would have thought they would write "Based on translated Japanese Naval Documents"... Jappalang (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah OK. I think I originally read that as "made from" not "taken from". Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

5 images up for review

There are currently 5 images in the review category. THey're not really my area. Can someone take a look at them? My speciality is US military images but I'm trying to branch out. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I tagged two as PD since they were published prior to 1880 or so but the other 3 I was less certain of, esp the one of the text as it appears the uploaded thinks his uploading it made it PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Zaren-og-Poincaré.jpg‎

I have translated the Danish text into English and suggested another license template, but I'm also unsure about its validity. I don't know what to do since we don't know if it was published before 1939 and in what country. We only know that it was (re)published in Germany in 1939 (if this should indeed be the first publication, I guess the photo is PD from January 1, 2010?). Nillerdk (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, PD-Art is not appropriate. {{PD-Scan}} maybe. Does the book give any author info? It is used on the cover of this book; wonder if there is any info there. Hard to believe that was the first publishing though. More probably a Russian photo, or maybe French. Could well be Anonymous-EU or a Russian equivalent, but without more info there is no way to know. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The photo was published in L'Illustration 4 days after the event.[26] It definitely qualifies as public domain in United States; however, there is the question of its copyright status in France. Does L'Illustration print the photographer's name? Jappalang (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Doesn't appear there is a credit, though can't quite read at that size. A French government website uses the photo here with just a credit to the magazine. There is also a L'Illustration issue from a couple weeks later at Gutenberg where the credits -- for photos that have them -- are in italics; I don't think I see a credit in that style from that source image. Sure looks like {{Anonymous-EU}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that—noted and updated the image details. PD passed. Jappalang (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Nachruf Franz Betschart.JPG

According to the German text, it is an obituary from the newspaper Schwyzer Zeitung ("Swiss Newspaper"), written by Franz Auf der Maur and published in 1949. The text is obviously not PD (will become PD 70 years after death of the author). Nillerdk (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alois Lüönd.jpg, it appears that user was uploading images inherited from grandparents etc. I wonder if that is another example, although that is a different name (the uploader's last name was Lüönd). If so, then the license is plausible (PD-Old is not being claimed). Still, that has COM:SCOPE issues as well; pure text uploads usually don't belong here unless it is photo of a particular historical document or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this image while checking files in de-wiki for dupes on Commons. On de:Datei:Nachruf Franz Betschart.jpg the license is "PD-ineligible" (Diese Datei erreicht nicht die für einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz nötige Schöpfungshöhe.). That's why I requested a review. --MGA73 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how that would apply, but maybe it does in German law. It looks like that was not the original license (the uploader used a deleted template of "Bild-PD", though since it was done by a bot, maybe that was just a renaming). If it is actually PD, then it probably belongs on wikisource anyways, but that seems highly doubtful for U.S. law anyways. I would probably nominate for deletion on Commons on both PD and scope grounds, leaving the local copy (if that is valid for de-wiki). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you nominate it for del then? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nachruf Franz Betschart.JPG, not sure if this is sort of a failed PD files review... Jappalang (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

File:SMS Zenta1.jpg

Based on translations, it is claimed the source is the Kriegsarchiv Wien (Vienna War Archive) and the author is unbekannt (unknown). If this site is trusted, this image was published on p. 273 of Jane's Fighting Ships (1903), which would qualify it as {{PD-1923}}; at least it can be hosted on Wikipedia. The problem for Commons is who took this photograph (to determine Europe copyrights). Does Jane's identify the author? If it does not, then perhaps we can use {{Anonymous-EU}}, but we need some confirmation. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Benedict Calvert.jpg

File:Benedict Calvert.jpg hangs at the Enoch Pratt Free Library.[27] It is a European painting (likely British) collected for/donated to the Library. Although put together as a series of "Six Lords Baltimore", the paintings (others are 17th–18th century) are collected from different sources/authors.[28][29] It is likely a 17th-18th century painting, but there is no source to verify this (or for near-conclusive inference).

The Library states (post-edit: note the underlined sentence), "The digital images contained in the Portraits of the Six Lords Baltimore Collection are copyright 1998 by the Enoch Pratt Free Library. The Library does not own the copyrights to the prints themselves; to the best of our knowledge all the images published on this website are no longer copyrighted. Anyone intending to use these images must be aware that they may be subject to copyright, fees, and other legal restrictions imposed by parties outside of the Library. Usage of this exhibit implies consent with these digital guidelines. The users of this exhibit are solely responsible for any storage, republication, adaptation, or transmission of these images in any form outside of this exhibit. The Enoch Pratt Free Library is not responsible for the outside use of these images." How do we fit a license to this painting if it can be stored on Commons? Jappalang (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyfraud again... Regarding the picture, I am afraid it is anonymous, see also [30]. Sv1xv (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded that one as it's clearly superior. Rocket000 (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in the copyfraud; it is the Library's assertion that "to the best of our knowledge all the images published on this website are no longer copyrighted" (I should highlight that) we should be interested in. Can we take that as a statement of the anonymous undated painting as in public domain? If so, what sort of template/license are we going to use for that? Jappalang (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Presuming it was a contemporary portrait and thus PD-Old seems reasonable. There is no picture to verify, but it would seem to be the same painting sold at public auction in 1903 (Google Books link), so that would seem to be the last possible date of publication -- although the painting probably predated any copyright law which would have protected it... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the portrait held by the Calverts and later auctioned off is this one: a half-body portrayal of Leonard Calvert, who wears a long curly white wig per 17th century fashion. Jappalang (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that would be right. Nice searching. I should have read your original links better :-) Still, all logic and evidence for the uploaded painting points to PD-Old, so that should be the tag we use (inside PD-Art). Unless you want to use PD-UK-unknown; that would seem to be accurate too -- an apparently English painting, which I'm sure the provenance was investigated as much as possible, and the author is still unknown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going with PD-Old and approving PDreview here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I presume the reason we are going for PD is because the five other Lords Baltimore paintings are of the 17th–18th century and it is extremely unlikely this is a later 19th-century or early 20th century work (not likely either that the collector would pick up such a painting to complete the series)? Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your own links state that the original owner of all six was a descendent of the Calverts (Sir Thomas Calvert Eden), who had inherited them from an ancestor. No reason to think they came from different sources. This page (a Pratt Library page) goes a bit further; all six were owned by Caroline Calvert Eden (wife of w:Sir Robert Eden, 1st Baronet, of Maryland, died 1784) so they all presumably existed in that time frame. A couple of them were dispersed in sales and later re-collected, but they all came from the same original owner. I can't see any reason to question PD-Old. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

By "different sources", I mean "different authors"; each painting was done by a different painter. Jappalang (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK :-) But said unknown painter lived during the 1700s by all indications, so PD-Old is fairly obvious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you also review templates?

We have a lot of templats/licenses stating that somthing is PD because ... Could you also review them? Like {{PD-PDFnet}}, {{PD-STFP}}, {{Demis-pd}} and {{PD-Denmark50}} (there must be a good way to find all PD-templates). That way we could see that the template is ok. --MGA73 (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Does a PD-review of a template imply that all images from that source are free? Sv1xv (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No but it could verify, that the template was valid - at least at the time where it was verified. Copyright notices could be changed on webpages (thats one of the reasons for doing a flickr review). And sometimes copyright notices are unclear (is "Feel free to use my images" enough for PD?) so someone might start uploading images thinking that whatever the template says is correct. If it is an english web page I could check myself but if it is chineese or russian I can't check. But to be honest I personally have not checked NASA-template but I trust that someone has ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

34 Yosemite pics

There are 34 Yosemite pics in the review cat now. It lists the date as 1900-1925 so I'm not sure we can pass these. Thoughts? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-hand, I am in favour of passing the obvious ones. Stereographs are generally made to be sold (for the stereograph craze in those days). I see some of the stereographs have the Copyright notice and the year as pre-1923. Hence, these should be definitely {{PD-US}}. Others are lacking notices, but if the c. 1900–25 date is to be believed, then {{PD-US-no-notice}} would do. I am a bit concerned that {{PD-Scan}} does not allow the PD reason to be included like {{PD-Art}} does. Perhaps an admin can change {{PD-Scan}}? Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Post-edit: note that {{PD-Scan}} now allows for {{PD-Scan|PD-US}}, {{PD-Scan|PD-US-no-notice}}, etc. Jappalang (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This has now increased to 192 after I have pass-reviewed 10... Jappalang (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I did several too, but I have a problem with the ones that could go past 1923. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that you can go to the NYDL site (as linked in the Source field) and check the back of the stereograph for copyright notices (if any). Jappalang (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bio.congress.gov

Okay, now I see that Biographical Directory of the United States Congress gives many supposedly Congressional images (which many expect to be PD). However the the copyright states "Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder." and a specific template {{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}} was deprecated for that reason. My question is that many people have either been obliviously or intentionally tagging images from that site with a {{PD-USGov-Congress}} license instead. If an image's only source is this website should be be PD failing these, e.g. File:Dianne Feinstein, official Senate photo.jpg (source)? Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 18:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bio Guide typically gives their sources when they obtain portraits from outside sources. See some of the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg. The issue from the bioguide site usually comes up with photos of older politicians... for modern ones, I would think they would almost always be official portraits. Can't see any reason to assume otherwise. And with a little poking... the image is the exact same one that used to be on Feinstein's senate webpage. The slightly higher resolution version is actually still on feinstein.senate.gov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Ar95.D-OHEO.JPG

This photo has been transferred to Commons from de-wiki. There was an inconclusive deletion request. Could someone fluent in German notify de:User:ADL on de-wiki, perhaps he can give us some details about the source and copyright status of this photo and why a 1937 photo is tagged as {{GFDL}}. Sv1xv (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless ADL is the photographer or the photographer's descendant, he or she would not have the right to administer the copyright of the image in question. German copyrights are fundamentally heredity in nature. Quoting Film Copyright in the European Union, "The solution is different in Germany, where article 29 of the copyright Act states that copyright may be transferred mortis causa but shall not be otherwise transferable."[31] (Also defined in German Tax and Business Law.[32]) The author can grant another person the "exclusive right" to use the image however he or she wishes, but it is not a transfer of copyright and it is only transferable on the permission of the author/copyright holder.[33] This issue seems to require an OTRS from ADL to affirm his or her identity in relation to the photographer. Jappalang (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that de:User:ADL does not use Commons (there is no User:ADL) and he is not aware of this discussion. Sv1xv (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone has to contact him or her then; as it is, we have no evidence that ADL is the photographer or a descendant, thus no right to license the image to others. Jappalang (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that on the surface, the circumstances described in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ar95.D-OHEO.JPG does not point to ADL as a descendant but as someone who just came into possession of the negatives. Jappalang (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We may have a problem contacting de:User:ADL; he has not edited de-wiki since September 2007. See de:Spezial:Beiträge/ADL. Sv1xv (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, my stance is for deletion. ADL has not given any indication he is the copyright holder or the descendant. I would not like to burden anyone to face a possible court case if they use the image under the thought that ADL has given them license to do so (which ADL has not the right). Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Any other opinions, or do we start {{Copyvio}}, {{Npd}}, or nominate for {{Delete}} again? Jappalang (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ADL stands for "Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrthistoriker", a community of German aviation historians with great reputation, who write many publications. One of it's members started to work with the Wikipedia, which was thought to be great for the Wikipedia content for many users, but conflicts with other users, especially regarding the original research rules of the Wikipedia led to deep disappointment so he did not contribute any more. The Pictures are from the ADL Archive, and it is unlikely that there will be any copyright claims. But they will probably not comply with the Wikipedia rules. It is sad that Specialist who are willing to work for the Wikipedia are not respected and soon leave the project. He will not care if you are deleting the picture. He now is working for other websites and writes more books which you will have to buy. But this is a different story. 12:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (User Erzwo on the German Wikipedia)

Erzwo, thanks for the information. Then the photo is an orphan. By that I call a work (usually a photograph) which is unpublished, by an unknown artist, not old enough to ensure 70 years pma, and which the current owner does not have the legal right to publish. Sv1xv (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless it could be considered {{Anonymous-EU}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Carl, unofrtunately {{Anonymous-EU}} works for 70 years after publication, not after creation. This is one of the causes that create orphans. Sv1xv (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The German law states In the case of anonymous and pseudonymous works, copyright shall expire 70 years after publication. However, it shall expire as soon as 70 years after creation of the work if the work was not published within that time limit. So, that period may well have expired too. If ADL published it before the 70 years was up, either it was unauthorized (and the 70-years-since-creation would still apply) or it was authorized (and the GFDL may actually apply). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the photo is dated 1937, which makes sense, as they were built in 1936-37. ADL published the photo in 2007. Sv1xv (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A tough call. seems to me since it was not known to be published within the 70 years from creation, the rule about 70 years from creation applies and we tag it PDR. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging as PD, discussion seems to have died out. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this. How can we assume that the photo is PD when we don't know where it originally came from, who the author was and whether it was published before or not? It could be an anonymous work, but without more information from the uploader, we have no way of deciding this on our own. From ADL's comments during the discussions surrounding his uploads, it seems that he/they thought that it would be sufficient for us to know that these images are from ADL's archives and that they release them under a free license. As far as I can see, further inquiries about the exact sources, copyright holders and other details weren't answered satisfactorily and then ADL left the project because most of his uploads were deleted due to the lack of information. IMHO we don't have enough information to evaluate the copyright status of this image. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kam Solusar. We are making some big leaps in assumption here. ADL was not forthright in giving us pertinent information of the photo. We are not even certain if this photo was taken in 1937 (they were built in 1936–37, but this does not mean the photo cannot be taken in 1944 or even a few years after the war) or if it was unpublished from 1937 until 2007; it might have been published in a magazine or book in that period. Since the archive exists, then communication and investigation of details are possible. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change it go ahead. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue over PD-Art for paintings in UK

Main: Commons:Village pump#Legal threat from National Portrait Gallery

Dcoetzee has been delivered a legal notice by the NPG for uploading their high-resolution photos of paintings. They are preparing a lawsuit against him under UK law. This thread is to gather attention to the main thread at Village pump. Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these the same as those stereoscopic images or a different set? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's about a few thousands of old portraits downloaded from the National Portrait Gallery in London. Sv1xv (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:The Commons

Is this PD? Would tagging images from that category be in scope here? --MGA73 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

They come from the Flickr Commons, where the contributing institution has declared them to be free of copyright for one reason or another. They should virtually all be fine. The only issue is that I would guess they would only use the law in the institution's country, so there may be a few cases where something is not PD in the country of origin and/or the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Image review - File:Żołnierze bawarscy pocz. XVIII w..jpg

A contributor to Wikimedia Commons has noted that this image is in need of attention, but would prefer a more experienced contributor aids or undertakes this.

Issue: Claimed as self but looks like an old book illustration.

Will request more detail from the original uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You could tag them for review as they have not been reviewed yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I do that? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

PD-self is obviously wrong. But, it is probably PD-Old. It appears to come from a Vinkhuizen Collection, which was 32,000+ pieces depicting military costumes, which was donated to the New York Public Library in 1911 (after Vinkhuizen's death).[34] Have not managed to track down the original work. Obviously PD in the U.S. but also obviously a non-U.S. work. Still... it would have been published, collected (along with 30,000 others, which must have taken a while) and later donated in 1911. I have not found the actual source though, which would be nice. It probably came from the New York Public Library. It looks like the original uploader stopped contributing over two years ago. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the license is totally wrong. Problem is that Vinkhuizen Collection is a compilation from various sources.[35] This particular image is likely gotten from the NYPL Digital Gallery—http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?1503571 (same size). While undoutably {{PD-1923}}, its status in its source of country could be a concern if the artists are listed. Jappalang (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it obviously came from the NYPL, but I couldn't find it originally -- thanks for that link. This one's source is here. No author listed but you would think there would be one in the original work. Though, also according to the first link you gave (in its comments), many of the images are Vinkhuizen's own versions of uniforms, either derivatives of some other work or even possibly original. Those would be PD-Old, but it does seem as though documentation on his sources is largely missing. Makes it fairly frustrating. The illustration does not appear to be signed either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So PD-Old or PD-1923? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

They are not U.S. works (rather Dutch I think). They are PD-1923 for the U.S., but that doesn't apply in the Netherlands. If these were made by Vinkhuijzen himself (parts of his collection were), they are PD-Old. If it was cut out of a 19th century publication, it's fuzzier, as a source publication doesn't seem to be documented. In all likelihood PD-Old though. I'd just go with that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Jugoslavija1929 banovine.jpg

I had filed a deletion request for this map, but the uploader (User:Exec) insists it is public domain. So I submit it here for review and if it fails it must go for a speedy deletion. Sv1xv (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Yugoslav copyrights are a bit of a mess to begin with -- they were a Berne signatory, and works may be "simultaneously published" in all successor countries, though if this map company was located in one particular successor country, that may be the one to use. This link seems to indicate that a Vladimir Marinkovic published a Yugoslav map in 1931; maybe that is the same person/company. I'm not sure if this would be considered a personal or corporate copyright, or if Yugoslavia had different terms for them, or what. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Publisher was located in Beograd (see down left corner), today in Serbia. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Bellerive Hotel Kansas City Missouri.jpg

I am not sure the "source" information is sufficient, perhaps adding the publishing date of the nomination form would be better. I guess it is the 2/28/80 issue listed on http://www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/Jackson.htm at the "Bellerive Hotel" entry.

My computer has some troubles reading this sort of pdf file. I can read parts of it only (fortunately p. 13 displays correctly, but not other pages).

My main question is : do we have reasons to believe this photographer is a federal employee ?

Could he not be a private photographer who simply happened to provide pictures for that administration ?

Could he not be a State employee, rather than a federal employee ?

Teofilo (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be an image from the application to the NPS to add the hotel to the National Historic Register. The PDFs say the negatives are still on file in Kansas City (as of 1979), and the photographer (Joan L. Michalak) co-authored a book ("Postcards from old Kansas City"), and the form itself says she is a member of the Historic Kansas City Foundation. They are not PD-USGov. The only question is if photos submitted on that application were assumed to be donated to the public domain... doesn't sound like it; these instructions (warning: 21MB PDF file) say By allowing a photograph to be submitted to the National Park Service with a National Register form, photographers grant permission to the National Park Service to use the photograph for publication and other purposes, including duplication, display, distribution, study, publicity, and audio-visual presentations. So, only the NPS has permission. There is no copyright notice that I could see, though this likely wouldn't count as a general publication. They are nominated for deletion, so I added this info there too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this clarifies things a lot. Teofilo (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Folly Theater burlesk.jpg

The uploader wrote in the "author" field : "unknown HABS photographer", but what the caption page is saying is slightly different : "photographer unknown".

If we don't know, if the person who created this catalog entry doesn't know who the photographer is, it is difficult to know if he is a federal employee or isn't.

The Library of Congress says :

The Library of Congress is providing access to these materials solely for educational and research purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or other rights holders (such as publicity and/or privacy rights) is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions.

Source : memory.loc.gov

So, should not this picture be uploaded to the English Wikipedia only, with a "fair use" rationale ? Teofilo (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

HABS took most of their photos. The caption page does not mention an external source for this image, while they do for several others. They also have no problem vending the high-resolution versions, which they often prevent if there is a possible issue. Dunno, I would say the current listing is the most likely situation, and moving back to en-wiki is much too cautious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed the Author= field into "photographer unknown" with quotes. I am still a bit sceptical about template {{PD-USGov-Interior-HABS}}'s change of the cautious "solely for educational and research purposes" into "it's free beer". I'd rather we used the "it's free beer" approach only in obvious cases like the pictures in category:Jack Boucher. I am not sure that oversimplifying copyright issues serves best the interest of the users. Teofilo (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They also have no problem vending the high-resolution versions, which they often prevent if there is a possible issue. -> I don't think we can rely on this : they provide high resolution versions even when they credit an external source : Commons:Deletion requests/File:116271pv.jpg (large size tiff available here). Teofilo (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The rights page states: The original measured drawings and most of the photographs and data pages in HABS/HAER/HALS were created for the U.S. Government and are considered to be in the public domain. However, occasionally material from a historical society or other source is included in the photographs or data pages. These materials are noted by the presence of a line crediting the original source, and it may be necessary to receive permission from the owner of such material before it can be published. The general assumption is then for public domain. The one you mention above is from an external source (unknown photographer of the construction company), but may well have donated to the public domain by that company. It is most likely PD (odds of renewal are low), though there does not seem to be explicit documentation to that effect. And as you note, the government has provided high-resolution copies for a while now without complaint. There are a number of HABS records where access to even the thumbnails is blocked, so it appears these decisions are not indiscriminate. This page indicates that the John W. Cowper company requests attribution. I commented on the DR. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite strange that the loc has two "rights pages" for that collection : that one I mentioned with a "memory.loc" URL, and that one you are quoting. Odds of renewal are low, but most of these pics are probably protected as unpublished works. "The government has provided high-resolution copies for a while now without complaint"  : I have thought about this too, but on the other hand, the photographer's names are almost never mentioned in the html pages, so that a photographer googling his name has no probability of finding the pics. It is even more true when photographs are marked only with "photographer unknown". Teofilo (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

HABS started in the 1930s; it is not impossible that they lost track of their own photographers on some of the records. Some of their documentation states that some of the 1930s original negatives have been lost. In any event, anyone donating photographs to the effort should have been quite aware of the implications -- the government would publish them and make them available, even if previously unpublished. Still, it is good to look at the documentation pages for more accurate credits and tags. Usually it is pretty obvious which photos were taken by HABS and which were from external sources, but a couple of the ones you have mentioned here were not as obvious. The HABS photo submission guidelines state pretty explicitly:

Photographs taken for and included in the collections of HABS/HAER are in the public domain and are copyright free, except in the very rare instances where restrictions are imposed upon their use and distribution.

No photograph, negative, print or caption will be accepted for the HABS/HAER collection that bears a copyright statement or symbol. There will be no presumption of copyright. No one has the authority to waive this policy.

Every user is asked to credit the photographer and either HABS or HAER. Users of HABS and HAER records from the collection in the Library of Congress pay only the cost of reproduction. No user fees are charged.

I seriously doubt that many photos from this collection should be nominated at all. Perhaps have their tags fixed if they are not made by HABS photographers, but that is probably enough, unless there are explicit restrictions mentioned in the documentation (and I have seen HABS thumbnails blocked, so it does happen). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Nestorius.jpg

After Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nestorius.jpg, Sv1xv kept this file, and changed the license to PD-Old, but no date is given for the photograph. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the evidence available, I believe a deletion was premature and the issue should be discussed here, so I tagged it with Category:PD files for review. Obviously the {{PD-Art}} license tag was wrong. If a PD license applies, this should be some flavor of {{PD-old}}. I shall also close other borderline deletion requests which involve public domain images with the same method (see File:Jugoslavija1929 banovine.jpg). Sv1xv (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

When you go to http://www.heiligenlexikon.de/Gemeinfreiheit.html and then hover on the picture caption with the mouse, http://www.catholica.nl/archief/oktober/Perzie.html shows up in a popup. If you type down that adress in your browser's address bar, you can see that http://www.catholica.nl/archief/oktober/Perzie.html is a real web page, dated october 2002 so I believe that this is the source where the people at heiligenlexicon got if from. http://www.catholica.nl/disclaimer.html sort of implies that they "borrow" a lot of material from various sources. In case they are the copyright owner, they don't say that their texts or pictures are free. Teofilo (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that does appear to be the original source. If there is no indication of public domain status there... this one seems a bit dubious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No new information or evidence for over a month. I believe this one failed the PD-review. Should I close it? Sv1xv (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing: I closed the discussion with Failed. I don't think Catholica.nl is the ultimate source, but no good evidence of PD status was discovered. Sv1xv (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Manhattan Bridge Construction 1909.jpg

I was about to edit the permission field into Permission = This picture belongs to Library of Congress CALL NUMBER: LOT 12482 (H) {P&P}, annotated with "No copyright renewal" and change the license tag into {{PD-US-not-renewed}}, when I read "because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 with a copyright notice". So we still need some kind of evidence that it was ever published. Teofilo (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is the link to the collection by Irving Underhill containting this photo and 128 others: [36]. It is described there as a publication, so I guess it has been published? Nillerdk (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The description page states there were copyright statements on the materials -- registration started the clock ticking on U.S. copyright as much as publication. Presumably there was a starting year for copyright and therefore they had a time frame during which a renewal was required, and not found. PD-US-not_renewed would seem to be the correct tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Some works happen to be registered but never published, don't they ? Teofilo (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the 28-year term started at registration in that case -- they did not need to be published in that case. If not renewed 27-28 years later, they fell into the public domain even if they had never been published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:YB49-1 300.jpg

This photo was uploaded without a source, the uploader just stated "USAF". I located a recent (2007) USAF publication [37] which contains a version of this photo, with no reference to third parties ("courtesy photo" etc). Any views on its copyright status? Sv1xv (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is probably okay the site's disclaimer says "AF.mil is provided as a public service by the Office of the Secretary of Air Force (Public Affairs). Information presented on AF.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.", in further searching I found it here and it is a U.S. Air Force photo. Looks okay for PD review, do you agree? Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 13:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are different scans from the same or different prints from the same original negative. Sv1xv (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:YB49-2 300.jpg says it is a crop of this image, but gives the accurate original source and license statement. The edwards.af.mil page is now gone, but a copy can be seen at archive.org. archive.org does not have a copy of the actual full image anymore but does have a smaller one. Seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah... File:ΥΒ-49 bomber.jpg is a larger copy of the same image I think, with a still-active source. The image ID on that one identifies it as being taken by the Air Force, though the photographer is now unknown (it has the -F- in it, but the 9999J indicates they don't know who the photographer was). Definitely OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a new one, I just uploaded it from the page indicated by User:Rambo's Revenge. Sv1xv (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right, sorry. I had started looking before his reply ;-) But yes, the photo was taken by the Air Force so should be OK.

All now tagged as PD reviewed. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

File:A-4 VA-45Det1 CVS-11 intercept Moss NAN8-73.jpg

Common sense indicates that this is a US Navy photo, taken from U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News ([38]), where it was published without reference to third parties. Any views? Sv1xv (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems obvious. It's PD-US-no_notice if it isn't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(As an aside... it shouldn't have been marked "no source" in the first place, as it had a perfectly good source to begin with. It wasn't a direct link, but plenty enough information to find the issue.) Anyways, no way non-military personnel gets into *that* position to take a photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as reviewed. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Bridgeport seal.png

We have no evidence for the copyrighted free use, but is there any chance that this could be PD-old or PD-US-no-notice ? Teofilo (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a thoroughly modern interpretation. The upload comment on the original en-wiki upload is (in part) Seal of the United States City of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Image created by uploader using Corel Draw. Because of the complexity of the drawing, the results of an SVG export (both through Corel Draw and SVG Factory) were unacceptable and thus the [cut off] So... this has not just been taken from a website, and is largely self-drawn. The question is whether it is still derivative of a copyrighted version. The design of the seal is usually specified in (non-copyrightable) law, so there may be a graphical version there which can be drawn from and be perfectly fine. I sorta doubt it was drawn directly from a written description, but if so, that would make it perfectly fine too. Copyright only attaches to specific versions of coats of arms or seals, not their general design. (And state/municipal law itself is public domain, too.) It is similar to versions found on the municipal websites in terms of its basic elements and positions, but that is the "idea" part... the "expression" -- all the little details -- are different. Short answer... not completely sure, but as it is largely self-drawn it is copyrightable by that artist, and so is licensable as that artist wishes. It is also probably not a derivative work, unless a (copyrighted) source exists which has the same, specific bits of expression -- which I think would have to be shown. But this version is not (quite) PD because the author did not license it that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alfonso Capdeville's image

Hello, I would like to know if I could upload an image of Alfonso Capdeville, which is here; if so, which license I can use? I talked with Dferg (talk · contribs) and he told me that I could use either {{PD-old}} or {{PD-AR-Photo}}, but that I should ask here first. I don't have the exact date, but it's older than 1920, because Capdeville died on that year. Thanks, Agustín Any question? es-wiki 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-Old}} doesn't necessarily apply because the author of the work (who holds any copyright) may not have been dead 70 years.

• e.g. The photographer may have been 30 at the time it was taken (1905 say, so when Capdeville was aged 51 which seems reasonalbe). If the photographer lived until 70 (also reasonable), it wouldn't qualify for PD-Old until 70 years after the authors death. i.e. 1945+70 =2015. So to prove this you'd need some info. about the author.

For {{PD-AR-Photo}} you'd need to prove that Argentina was the country of origin (i.e. where it was taken, which could be tough, as I think Capdeville may have lived in France post-1910) and that it was first published at least 20 years ago (should be easier and can almost be assumed). Hope this helps, Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. If this information is useful, Capdeville lived in the w:Mendoza Province since 1910, in the middle of the countryside. Well, Rambo's Revenge, can I upload it? Your explanation was very clear and useful, thanks, Agustín Any question? es-wiki 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Battle Hymn of the Republic.ogg

I checked the link on the description page [39] and found the following message:

The item is not available due to issues with the item's content. If you would like to report this problem as an error report, you may do so here.

Is their any further information about this sound file? Sv1xv (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the sounds of that one. The song itself is fine, but the recording may very well not be -- w:Douglas Jimerson is a contemporary performer, and it sounds like he has released a CD -- we probably want much better proof of the owner of the recording actually releasing it to the public domain. Especially if archive.org has removed it. Archived version of their original page here. I would say to nominate for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This one is closed as well, the file has been deleted. Sv1xv (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Canthigaster rostrata inflated SI.jpg

According to [40] this photo was created by the "Belize Larval-Fish Group" in 2005, so it is under regular copyright. Sv1xv (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That group is apparently part of the Smithsonian Institution. Most Smithsonian employees (not all) are federal employees, so it may be PD-USGov. If it was made by other employees, then the Institution may own the copyright, but have apparently placed it in the public domain by virtue of placing on Flickr Commons. The Smithsonian doesn't really ever distinguish which of their own works were made by federal or non-federal employees; they typically just claim copyright on everything. But, anything they submit to Flickr Commons should be fine. The PD-author possibility is covered in the tag used. I don't see any issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I closed it with positive result. Sv1xv (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.