Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Copyheart

I this a free license according to the definition by freedomdefined.org? While its core message seems to be "screw copyrights, do whatever you want with it", the actual "manifesto" only mentions sharing and copying, but does not explicitly allow changes and derivative works. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Their manifesto does say "No restrictions". It's certainly not designed to be a legalistic license, but it seems tantamount to putting something in the public domain (as much as possible). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, they probably didn't even think they would have to mention things like derivative works. But the problem with such "amateur" licenses is IMO, that you can never be too sure how users of that license or courts interpret the license. So, can we be sure that people who published content under this license are all okay with other people modifying and then sharing their works? And how would courts decide in this matter if a dispute between a creator and a licensee escalated? --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
And what would be the result if someone put "CC-BY" on a work and then had second thoughts when someone used it commercially and then sued, saying they weren't aware of the full implications, or interpreted some clause differently than we do? Or simply said "I place this in the public domain" and then sued over it? I'm not sure you need a 10-page legalistic looking document in order to have some protection in court. Agreed there is always some gray area with "amateur" licenses, but that will always be there, even with other licenses. Parts of that are admittedly a bit uncomfortable -- saying that the "value" is increased by the copying, but then the "no restrictions" part basically ensures the author waives all right to be financially compensated for that value (and possibly even attributed, depending on the country). Derivative works are a form of copying though (part of the original author's expression must have been copied into the derivative; the only real difference is that there is additional copyrightable expression added). So when they say "Please copy" and especially "No restrictions", that to me is basically waiving copyright. It's possible that others might disagree, but I don't think in this case the possible concerns are enough to actually delete works which authors have actually marked with this tag. I would be more careful in cases where the person is trying to retain some rights and restrictions; it's much easier for amateur licenses to get tangled up in those cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-free segments in long recordings

I've recently been working on some spoken articles on English Wikipedia. An open question for spoken article content, as well as for third-party freely-licensed radio programs, news programs, and podcasts, is whether Commons is willing to permit the upload of long audio or video works that incorporate short segments of non-free works, such as news television programs. My general sense is that, whether or not such non-free segments are de minimis, they will usually fall within the narrow range of fair use permitted by all WMF projects including Commons - the same way that Commons permits quotation of non-free works on file description pages, and images containing text. I realise that this is a difficult question to address in the abstract without a specific case before us, but some general guidance to people producing this type of content for Commons would be helpful. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

First off, where do you have the idea that we allow images containing copyrighted text on Commons? AFAIK that's against policy as COM:DW. Sometimes the texts are themselves PD.
Also, they aren't de minimis as they are quoting the work in question - DM only refers to when a copyrighted work is part of a greater work by pure chance - e.g., a poster accidentally in the background.
As for the quotations that contain copyrighted fragments, we should ask the WMF for its opinion. Even if they aren't in use, it seems to me that they would never run afoul of the "fair use must be in use" policy, as they are just a quotation of the old version of the page, which is a form of use - unless the old version of the page itself ran afoul of policy (e.g., a Wikipedia article which quotes two pages of a novel is excessive fair use and would normally be deleted on Wikipedia; but then Commons would need a policy here saying "this quotation is invalid fair use."). Because of this, we'd need our own policy that says "fair use quotations on Commons must conform to the fair use standards of the local project which it is quoting." In all, it may be simpler to keep the files on the local projects.
I don't think you understood the question. There is no need to invoke fair use when replicating free content from local projects (it is freely licensed). I was also not asserting DM. Commons' policy on forbidding fair use makes it very clear that it was established on the basis that non-free content is often fair use in one context but not in another, but that would not be the case in a situation where the file itself provides the necessary context to fully justify fair use. A common example of this would be a screenshot of a Wikipedia article that happens to include quotations of non-free works - they are obviously not de minimis, but they are fully embedded in a fair use context. It would seem to me that non-free segments in long audio/video files should fall under a similar exemption, in principle. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • We obviously need to seek the opinion of WMF on the allowability of this sort of fair use on Commons. But if I had my say, I would want Commons to be allowed to host files which involve some fair use but is essentially free content, e.g. spoken Wikipedia articles containing non-free quotations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Screen shot from You Tube

This image File:Ghouta massacre1.JPG is a screen shot captured and modified from an unidentified video posted on YouTube. I nominated for speedy deletion as a derivative of non free work. Please double check, thanks. USchick (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

New Template

Do we need a new template for http://www.gahetna.nl/en/about-us/open-data images? File:Sean Connery en Micheline Roquebrune (1983).jpg is one of them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The license appears to be CC-BY-SA, and we have templates for that. A source template would make a lot of sense though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I can fumble through a template by copy/pasting from an existing one. I just thought it may save others in the future that may think the images are copyvio as I did. Note that not all on the site are CC.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Flickr CC

File:Holden Commodore S & SS Advert.jpg & File:Holden Commodore SS Group A advert.jpg
Is CC reasonable for these flickr pictures? -- Cherubino (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Both should be deleted as copyvio.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as obvious copyright violations. --rimshottalk 20:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimapia

Hello all,

I have found some images on wikimapia:

Is there a chance to copy them to commons and not to see them deleted? Vcohen (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A link that said what the photos are (location, date, source, author), with context and a traceable path to main and licensing pages would help. I haven't used Wikimapia in 2 or 3 years; My impression when I did use it was it was a suitably free site, sometimes with very useful content, but with poor quality control so it was full of copyvios. Thus it at least needs careful 1 by 1 scrutiny. Anyone know if it is blacklisted for uploads? Dankarl (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see an explicit mention of a license there. One of the pics seems to come from http://www.sannerud.com/places/WTC/after/ . The homepage owner claims these are personal photographs, so it might be worth a shot asking him for permission directly. --Dschwen (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. It seems there is no chance. I will try other ways. Vcohen (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. This is the source. Its license is Noncommercial, so it is not commons compatible. Vcohen (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Images from archives (Spain)

Hello. I've uploaded these images: Category:Images from Archivo Díaz de Escovar on the understanding that they are now on the public domain. Can someone confirm if this is the case? And if so, if the chosen licence is right? Many thanks, tyk (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You also have to specify why you think that the copyright has expired in Spain. For this, you need to show that the artists have been dead for at least 80 years. The illustrations are from the 1860s, so this seems likely to be the case. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Stefan4, tyk (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Miguel Treviño Morales picture copyright

I wonder how this image is said to be licensed under GNU FDL and CC while the author is U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Isn't it supposed to be in public domain? Sentausa (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This photo is not a work of US government. It is a crop from a private photo. Ruslik (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Tagged "no evidence of permission" as it is unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder as currently claimed. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi's works

Hello,

I came across this statement from the Gandhi Heritage portal. Gandhiji’s writings are free of any copy right restrictions... Does it change anything regarding files which where deleted here (mostly because of URAA), and the above discussion about Indian copyright law? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It would not change anything about his writings. Even if the 1992 law did not extend their copyright as intended, his works were at least 50pma, and since he died in 1948 his works were still under copyright protection in India in 1996 and thus subject to the URAA. It *might* have some effect on photographs, although I'm reluctant to use a technicality in the wording of the law which was contrary to the legislature's clear intent (at least as regards the 1992 law) to claim PD status, unless we can find a case which actually did rule that way -- not sure we have yet. But if other folks feel that the wording of the law meant that the lawmakers intended that pre-1957 photographs (or rather pre-1941, as the 1992 law clearly intended to extend the terms) remained based on time of creation, then it could affect a number of Indian photographs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Who is the copyright holder to Gandhi's writings? If Gandhi Heritage Portal is the present copyright holder, then that statement could be seen as a {{PD-self}} in countries where the copyright hasn't expired for any other reason. On the other hand, if the Gandhi Heritage Portal is an unrelated third party, then I wouldn't pay any attention to that statement. It would be nice to have the photo question clarified by an expert on Indian copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Uploading pictures taken by others acting as employees or volunteers in the U.S.

Hello everyone. It was suggested I post here at the help desk. There, I posted this. To repeat myself, I said "There is a garden I know that has pictures of different species from its property. If a person who was working (or volunteering) for the garden took those pictures on duty for the garden, can the director of the garden release the pictures not taken by themselves under a free license here?" Any advice? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I agree with Jmabel's post there. The answer is probably yes for pictures taken by employees, assuming they were taken as part of their job. (The pictures would then be works for hire.) For pictures by volunteers, the answer would be no, unless they explicitly signed over their copyright. --Avenue (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
As there is no paid employment or contract, there is no exchange of property that would make the photograph a work for hire. It may have been considered a free donation from a volunteer and as per Avenue I agree that evidence of their release is needed. If the photographer was in an employment contract and they took photos as part of their job, then it is reasonable for the director to assert the organization can release the photos. The degree of good faith/verification required depends on reasonableness of context; photos of plants in a garden run by a charity are far less likely to raise "significant doubt" as to the release than photos of staff and residents in a private and commercial care home. --Fæ (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Note that in the US only employees normally transfer rights to their employer automatically; a contractor does not transfer rights unless their contract stipulates that they do so. If the situation is unclear (e.g. due to a vaguely-worded or unavailable contract) then I would simply seek permission from both parties, to be safe. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Images from the Getty Research Institute Open Content Program that are not obviously in the public domain

Hello all,

recently Getty Images has releasd 4600 images into the public domain [1]. Some of them may qualify for the usual PD-templates such as PD-1923, but for some of them we don't have the evidence needed to apply one to those templates – see Help desk and this DR. Can we trust Getty and assume that they did their researy and the files are indeed in the public domain? If yes: could someone please create a license template similar to {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}? Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

My usual advice would be to ask the institution releasing the image for the required licensing information. A professional institution will be easily able to explain from their records why they believe they hold the rights to a particular image, or why it is PD for other reasons. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Philippines Government works

There's a comment at Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov that the template can only be used for official texts and translations not pictures, is that correct? If it is, there are several photos in Category:PD-Philippines-exempt that would need to be deleted. (Reason I ask is that I was hoping to upload this image.) January (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A user notified me about "problems" with the logo for Post Danmark. I checked the user's recent contributions and saw that File:Post Danmaks logo.png recently had been uploaded and subsequently deleted as a copyvio. Are we sure that this really is copyrightable? Compare with COM:TOO#Not protected which shows that the WWF panda is below the threshold of originality in Denmark. I'm wondering whether this might mean that the post's logo is too simple for copyright. You can see the logo (and other things) here. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It may be not copyrightable in Danmark but the question is whether it is copyrightable in USA? Ruslik (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the image because file included not just the word post but also the logo on the left which is multicoloured and comprising of more than just simple shapes, which is way beyond the requirements for US copyright protection. Gnangarra 22:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Audi e-tron (Edit1).jpg

 Question I understand why photos of production cars such as anything in Category:Holden Commodore are not protected by a Holden copyright on the car as they are production cars and are utilitarian. However the same can't be said for images such as File:Audi e-tron (Edit1).jpg, it is unique and not in production (at the time of taking), so why is it not afforded the same protection as a photo of any other 3d artwork ? Why should I not start a DR based on this being a derivative work of a 3d sculpture ? LGA talkedits 07:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it is not a sculpture and its design is still overwhelmingly utilitarian. Ruslik (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
It has more of a design to it than a lot of sculptures out there, For example, the lights and grill are far more design than function. Then what about File:BMW Concept Vision Efficient Dynamics Front.JPG is is clear case of style over function. LGA talkedits 09:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Carnet de Marches-Types, Alsace

Hello

I borrowed an old book from a friend containing old french railway information situated in Alsace to get information about some railway information in Wikipedia. I started to scan this book (300dpi). It is titled:

Chemin de fer d'Alsace et Lorraine (overprinted with "SNCF")
Transport Militaires
Carnet de Marches-Types Alsace
No 378

I don't found a date. But the SNCF (the overprinting) is founded 1938-01-01, so the book seems to be older than 1938, updated with some newer infos, some maps have overpasted parts. 1940 the french time in Alsace ended for some years ...

  • So the book seems to be older tham 73 years. Right?
  • Is this book interesting for commons / wikisource?
  • Is it already public domain? If I understand the french law, it seems to be free of copyright (Pour les oeuvres pseudonymes, anonymes ou collectives, la durée du droit exclusif est de soixante-dix années). Right?

The first pages I copied to my webpage as jpg 150 dpi:

title 2 3 (4 blank) 5 6 7

--Mueck (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,
The maps, font style, paper lets me think to 1950s books.
The work isn't collective, anonymous or pseudonymous: it's a reuse by the SNCF of fully copyrighted map. As we've a publisher, well... France jurisprudence considers your duty is to contact this publisher to get relevant the copyright information (which is coherent with some other EU countries copyright laws adapting an EU directive, see for example {{PD-UK-unknown}}).
Futhermore, if the work weren't in public domain in France in 1996, so we're under the URAA restoration. It won't enter into public domain in US before 95 yeers after publication.
A file uploaded on Commons must respect two copyright laws: source country (here the France) and our for juridique country/WMF country/hosting country (the US).
Of course, if you wish to publish it elsewhere than Commons, for example on your personal site, as long as it's outside the US, it will be fine as soon it's in public domain in France.
If some of the maps are < 1926, we can even publish them on Wikimedia Commons right now.
So I would recommend to contact SNCF and record the elements.
They have impressive archive centers.
You'll find contact information at http://www.evenement.sncf.com/sncf.com/archives-documentation.sncf/
--Dereckson (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

what copyright do I use when the creator states "This chart may be reproduced freely if appropriate authorship/publishing credit is given."?

Here is the site: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/case-shiller-100-year-chart-2011-update/

Here is what it says:

... Note: This chart has been liberally copied without identifying either the source or author. If you see this elsewhere on the intertubes, you should recognize that it was created by Steve Barry, and is originally published here at TBP.

This chart may be reproduced freely if appropriate authorship/publishing credit is given. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be best off making your own. I don't think statistics can be copyrighted so the line itself may be public domain. The 2006 version is copyrighted by the New York Times. It looks like they extended it to 2011 and used the copyrighted background. If you create your own background from scratch and make your own line from the points you may be okay. NYT 2006--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
So the fact that the site says "This chart may be reproduced freely if appropriate authorship/publishing credit is given." is irrelevent? It can't be reproduced in wikipedia with authorship/publishing credit? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
The template {{Attribution}} is convenient in such situations.
Here I would use {{Attribution|nolink=Robert J. Shiller}}. --Dereckson (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The permission ("may be reproduced freely") does not explicitely include the option of creating derivative works (required by Commons:Licensing). I'd be very careful to translate "may be reproduced freely" to "may be used for any purpose" … --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Need input on a deletion discussion.

Can someone give some input at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tatuaje-de-Calvin-y-Hobbes.jpg?--Brainy J (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand how to post photo I took

I cannot figure out how to fill in the form to upload a photo I took to Commons for free use. I don't understand what to put into each window, particularly the Permissions window, but also others. This seems completely indecipherable to me, even though I've clicked on all the extra info icons I can find. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmankin1 (talk • contribs)

Did you choose "This file is my own work"? Vcohen (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Make sure you are uploading using Special:UploadWizard, not Special:Upload. It will greatly simplify the process for uploading your own works. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dcoetzee. That wizard makes it vastly simpler. I have uploaded the image. It is here. However, I screwed up the categories, and I did not understand how to enter a Google Maps geo-location. Any advice on fixing these errors? Bmankin1 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Most specific cat used; each needs to be a link. Finavon (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
{{location|D|m|s|N|D|m|s|W}} or {{location dec|D.d|D.d}} Finavon (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of election posters

Hi, are there any special copyright issues about election posters? For example, there is "Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2013". All of these images have the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license" and are claimed to be "own works". My impression is that this is not really true: The uploader only took a photo of someone else's work. The question is, am I entitled to alter (crop) these images so that all surroundings are removed (that means, so that only the poster itself or even only a part of it is shown)?--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Under US copyright law [2] the copyright of a poster belongs to the designer. A photo of the poster is still under the same copyright of the designer. See Commons:Derivative works. Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion File 3: Derivative works of non-free content are a copyright violation. A German poster would follow German copyright law. USchick (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

German propaganda archive

Hi, I sent an e-mail to the German propoganda archive asking if we can use their photos.

And here's how the conversation went:

Can we upload some of your Hitler photos to Wikimedia commons, so people can see and use them on wikipedia?


Randall Bytwerk 9:13 PM (5 minutes ago)

to me Yes.

Most are past the 70-year mark, so they should be OK. 

  Randall Bytwerk

The web address is http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/hitler2.htm

Do you see any issues with me uploading these photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs)

No to your 1st question, and Yes to your 2nd one. Nearly all photographies of Hitler were shot by his photographer Heinrich Hoffmann, who died only in 1957, and are thereby copyrighted til end of 2027. Some Hitler images are distributed by the U.S. and/or U.K. government as they consider them to be war booty. These would likely be allowed on :en Wikipedia, but not on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Heinz Traimer images

Some posters by this graphic designer can be seen in the English Wikipedia article on him. The problem is, 2 of them don't have OTRS notices for permission, although 4 others do. The uploader, Matthaeus Wien, has clumsily put the notices on some but not others, and doesn't seem to have replied to messages on his talk page. (Language barrier?)

The posters with OTRS notices are and

The ones without notices of copyright holder's permission are and – they only have the description and the licence boilerplate.

Could a moderator check if the last 2 were included in the previous OTRS notices? Demokratisch (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Publicly available and easily accessible government forms and documents

What is the general guideline on a blank data form issued by a government (eg. the US)? What about receipts, licenses, passports, visas etc? I believe that in many cases these are not legal tender (not currency etc, thus not the same as counterfeiting) and although not explicitly stated to be in the public domain, they are not copyrighted since they are publicly available to almost anyone. This query is prompted by a deletion tagging of an image I have uploaded which is somewhat historic and useful in that it shows how radio and tv required licenses in the past. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Indian_radio_license_full.jpg But note that there are many other such images inside Category:Documents_of_India Shyamal (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The US government does not have a copyright on things it produces and simple blank forms aren't copyrightable in the US anyway. Just because something is publically available to almost anyone doesn't not imply it is in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Which license do I use to upload a photo for someone else who is the author?

I have a photo of a musician friend (still living) that is his own work. I want to upload it for his biography which I am helping him with. What license do I use? --Dennis Fernkes (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The photographer gets to choose the license, but generally the CC-BY-SA 3.0 is recommended. You need to follow all of these steps (or else the photo will be deleted):
  1. Make sure they agree to license it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or a similar free license).
  2. Upload the photo, ensuring that you place the template {{OTRS pending}} somewhere on the image description page.
  3. The photographer must send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org consenting to the license. This template is provided for their convenience.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thank you. We will work on compliance. --Dennis Fernkes (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Rotating_Legionary_2.gif

Hello, please review the copyright status for the images File:Rotating Legionary 2.gif and File:Rotating Legionary.gif.

It was first suggested in this question on the Wikipedia Reference Desk that there might be an issue. One responder commented: Model is from an Autodesk 3DS Max file from Rome Total War mod called Roma Surrectum II. The "author" probably didn't get permission to use the model from its creator.

At Wikipedia Media copyright questions I was told there would be an issue "If the original model isn't the work of the editor uploading the image". I left a message for the uploader of the images but they have not been active for a long time and it is perhaps not surprising they have not responded yet.

At that point I was suggested to post all this information here for a "licence review". May I leave the issue with you now? Many thanks. 184.147.120.88 15:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The team behind the original mod is here at [3], I think. I suspect we'd need to know that the team had approved the release of the underlying image in this way, and that any original image rights from the Total War game itself (on which most mods are based) had also been suitably released by the company. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Precautionary principle - still good?

Is the Precautionary principle, which, according Commons:Project scope, "is considered a standard that everyone should follow," still valid or relevant to the Commons? If it is, what should an editor do when it is clearly being violated? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I get the feeling this isn't a real question, that you want an answer so you can browbeat someone else in a discussion elsewhere. If you have a problem with a file, you know how to nominate it for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
They are both real questions that I'd like answered. --Light show (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
If you believe there's a work on Commons we haven't adequately established is Free, you nominate it for deletion. I hardly believe that's a real question. If the Project Scope says it's a standard that everyone should follow, assume it's a standard that everyone should follow until there's evidence otherwise, then bring up the evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
When I feel that it's being ignored, I point it out. From my perspective, it's never considered as a factor when deleting images and seems to have no significance. It's even mentioned on my user page. Hence, my questions. --Light show (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The Precautionary principle is In case of doubt about the legality of the image, delete it., not a warning about being precautionary before raising such a doubt. --Dereckson (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You mean in case of "significant" doubt, I assume.--Light show (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thank you. You let me the opportunity to browse with success archived copyright registrations books! Well... I would have preferred to discover the copyright hasn't been renewed. But still, we've an exhaustive copyright information to publish your image in 2055. --Dereckson (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
No, a slight doubt is enough. Please see the DRs as a way to clarify the matter, not as an aggressive move. --Dereckson (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's contrary to what the Precautionary principle states. --Light show (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The workflow is generally:
  • Slight doubt -> DR
  • Significant doubt -> close the DR as delete
--Dereckson (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The purpose and intention of PRP is to clearly state that "No-one is likely to sue us" is not an adequate reason. No-one credibly disputes this.
The practice of PRP today is, "If I'm an admin getting my jollies from careless bulk deletions BECAUSE I CAN, then any content uploader challenging me is a priori a troll, a scumbag and can be threatened with a site ban. I do not need to show evidence for this and by deleting the image (and even its container categories, source description or metadata templates) I can hide such evidence from community scrutiny, such that only the admin cadre can see it."
citizen:Light show – for how long have you been a wife-beating communist copyright violator? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Ever since I stopped drinking.--Light show (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The way I read PRP is that the burden of proof lies on those who wish to establish a file is free for use. To make a legal analogy, if it can't be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that a file is free, then it must be deleted. What constitutes "reasonable doubt" is very much debatable, but it does not mean "any doubt" - for example, if a US work has a copyright mark from 1945, and is not in renewal records, we do not usually claim that it is in fact a clever forgery from 2005 and is still under copyright, unless there is evidence to suggest that. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
No. No one (except me) can establish beyond reasonable doubt that the photos I have uploaded are taken by me. To delete these files, I hope you need reasonable doubt about their status. Until such reasonable doubt is established, those who want to keep these images have no burden of proof at all. As I will not be around indefinitely to defend my images, this is the only way to usefully accept images licensed by unknown volunteers. --LPfi (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I consider "own work" to be an exception to PRP (for the pragmatic reason that otherwise anonymous volunteers could not contribute, which would defeat the wiki nature of the site). The burden of proof is reversed for these files - at least some good evidence is needed that the file is not really the uploader's own work. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Good. But the problem still exists for other files. For them, one has to provide some evidence they are free, but not "beyond reasonable doubt". If I find a file on a seemingly trustworthy web site and the licence is given as CC-BY-SA, I suppose I can upload it and have it kept - unless somebody finds a good reason to doubt the licensor's rights. Until such reasonable doubt, the licence should be accepted. For non-web sources the risk of uninformed or fraudulent "original" licensing is smaller, but not non-existent. --LPfi (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the original question. What happens when Administrators ignore copyright law and claim some obscure reason why it doesn't apply. I can provide an example if anyone is interested. USchick (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, everyone has admin decisions we'd like to bitch about. At a certain point, you just have to drop it. Bringing things up in this way is pointless; I don't have a clue whether the admin did something outrageous, the admin cut a fine line in a different way then you would have, or if they were clearly right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
If you disagree with an administrator you have the opportunity to renominate the works later, advance your case more clearly, and seek wider feedback. I have seen some blatantly incorrect DR closures - I brought them up for discussion again later and recruited wider feedback and they were deleted. No big deal. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful if administrators had to demonstrate a basic understanding of copyright before they were allowed to wield their power as "Administrator." Some of the most uninformed comments are posted by administrators. USchick (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You can't gain "wider feedback" at a deletion review because only admins can see what's involved and the first rule of admin cabal is that all admins will be defended as infallible. When images are being bulk deleted over very subtle points of copyright policy and have been rightly raised as deletion requests a forum for all editors to discuss the issue, it is harmful when individual admins then choose to speedy delete them and give no reasons for this judgement. Such a decision cannot be effectively challenged. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we can summarize it this way: If there is credible evidence that an image is free and no credible evidence that it is nonfree, then it is kept. If there is credible evidence that an image is nonfree and no credible evidence that it is free, then it is deleted. If there is credible evidence for both positions, then it is deleted (this is PRP). An example of this would be two reliable sources giving different dates, one of which implies PD and the other of which implies copyrighted. If there is no credible evidence for either position, then it is kept (this is AGF). An example of this would be a new user uploading an image which has not appeared elsewhere online and is not obviously professional. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So if someone steals an image from Commons and uses it with their own copyright message added, we then delete the Commons copy?
This is a real problem, not just with poorly credible scumbags on their own trivial websites, but also with ostensibly credible large organisations like Getty. Here's an iconic photo that Commons claims is PD. Yet look around for it and the Hulton-Getty collection will offer to license it to you for a fee. Should we delete the Commons version? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue behind the original question is this: User:Light show has been uploading images found on Ebay that do not carry copyright notices. Often the ebay seller does not even provide the back of the original photo. He asserts that so long as the front of the image does not carry a copyright notice, we are entitled to treat the image as public domain, even if we have no evidence that the image was ever published. Absence of information is not "evidence". Past practice has required that, for such images, we need to see both the front and back to verify the lack of a copyright notice, and we need evidence that the image was published, as the term is used in copyright law. Just because 75% of such publicity photos may have been published without copyright notices does not allow us to apply a blanket presumption without specific evidence. LS's argument was turned down by WMF attorneys during a review of his en-wiki contributions a few years ago (see [4] and related discussion). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, it closed after more of the usual helpings of WP.SOUP. We hope (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Each and every statement you just made is either wrong or misleading, at best:
  1. The question is stated up top, is very simple and clear. Therefore your personal opinion about the numerous historical "issues" that contributed to it is not useful without an answer, and merely avoids the question;
  2. Contrary to your statement, an image of the back of a publicity still has never been "required." And has been shown by your own research, notices when included by a movie studio were almost always put on the front;
  3. What's needed for evidence of publication of publicity photos is also explained there, along with the law itself explaining it.;
  4. Stating that "Absence of information is not 'evidence'", is misleading. Having a hard-copy original movie still without a notice is the primary "evidence." And the lack of a copyright notice is "evidence" of PD status for older photos per copyright laws; The legal experts have also made clear that "movie publicity photos were traditionally not copyrighted.." I think your 75% estimate would likely be closer to 99.99%, hence the relevance of the "Precautionary principle";
  5. As for the attorney's reply, which you said "turned down" the basic arguments, his response was actually in support of them: He wrote, It is likely that promotional materials, including production stills or posters released to promote a movie, released before 1978 are in the public domain. --Light show (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Attorney's reply
"It is likely that promotional materials, including production stills or posters released to promote a movie, released before 1978 are in the public domain. Public domain status can be ascertained by asking several questions:
  • Did the image contain a copyright notice?
  • How was the exact image released?
  • Was the image release “general” or “limited?”
"They note that "It is essential to confirm that the exact image uploaded to Common was released without a copyright notice" and that "Finally, prior to 1978, if released in a limited publication, a work would be published to a limited audience without a copyright notice without entering the public domain. The Ninth Circuit defining a limited publication as a distribution (1) to a definitely selected class of persons, (2) for a limited purpose, (3) without the right of reproduction, distribution, or sale. See White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47 (9th Cir.1952). While this might seem to encapsulate promotional materials, courts have held that the widespread distribution of promotional materials with the mere statement that they must be returned or destroyed is very unlikely to satisfy this definition. As such, a plaintiff is not likely to succeed with the argument that promotional materials were a limited publication. However, this determination will depend on the specific facts of the publication."
"They feel we are generally safe with the images as long as we can answer those questions. We need to know the specific details of the release and whether or not a copyright notice was included. Given no copyright notice and "general" release, we should be okay.
"So the next question would be, I suppose, whether or not you have been able to ascertain the specific details of these releases and to determine if a copyright notice was included? If you have not, that would seem based on our attorney's advice to be the next step -- determining and logging that."

We hope (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The only one of the three variables not obvious from the tangible photo itself might be whether it was a "limited" or "general" release. Is that the concern? In any case, he implies that it would not violate the Precautionary principle, which needs "significant doubt" that such images were not copyrighted. BTW, it's not acceptable to bold and underline portions of someone's quotes without noting that "emphasis was added" by you. And when you do so, at least explain why you highlighted those parts. --Light show (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
We waste a lot of time and effort on this recurring theme of yours which could be put to use on all of the projects. Every time it's been brought up, you've received the same answer, but since you don't like it, we have to come back to the question again and again.
This is the original upload from the most recent file up for deletion.
As stated, it can't be determined that the image is not under copyright.
This is a composite that includes the photo of Hackman you claim has no copyright notice, and it says "Copyright MCMLXXXIII By Paramount Pictures." You don't even know the name of the company who made the film; your upload template says "movie studio", and it has a license as being produced from 1978-1989 without a copyright notice. We hope (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Like BBW, you continue to digress onto other things and have yet to reply to the original purpose of this post or of the questions I just asked. I did not come here to argue DRs for specific photos, and you shouldn't either. That's a transparent diversionary tactic. As for your latest discovery, you fail to point out a few things: 1) that the photo uploaded was an original still without a copyright; 2) The compiled image of four photos would at best protect, if registered, a photo of four images as a compilation. The real evidence would be for you to do a search of this 1983 photo to see if it was copyrighted. I did. You haven't. But good luck. --Light show (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess this escaped your attention:
Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0000200419 / 1984-02-10
Application Title: Youth in Asia; The Eight; Last river to cross; The Seven; They’re alive; Missing in action.
Title: Uncommon valor / produced by John Milius & Buzz Feitshans ; directed by Ted Kotcheff.
Imprint: New York : Paramount Pictures Corp., c1983.
Description: 5 film reels : sd., col. ; 35 mm.
Notes: Deposit includes descriptive material (1 v.)
Cast: Gene Hackman, Fred Ward, Reb Brown et al.
Credits: Written by Joe Gayton; music by James Horner.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation
Date of Creation: 1983
Date of Publication: 1983-12-02
Authorship on Application: Paramount Pictures Corporation, employer for hire.
Previous Registration: Some musical compositions prev. reg.
Basis of Claim: New Matter: "portions of the screenplay as included in this motion picture photoplay, remaining musical compositions & other soundtrack, and cinematographic material."

We hope (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but movies ("Motion Pictures") have their own separate copyright, while Photographs have a different one. Keep digging. --Light show (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Not if they're derivative works. We hope (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Even derivative works have their own separate copyright.--Light show (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So where's the new material needed for that in this case? We hope (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a compilation of preexisting material (various still photos).--Light show (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The photo at DR is a solo photo of Hackman. We hope (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Which is exactly why it needs its own copyright. --Light show (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no proof that it's not taken from the film. We hope (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hence, my original question about the "Precautionary principle," (remember that?) to avoid having to respond to such statements when the overwhelming cited evidence indicates that such absolute "proof" is unnecessary. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gene Hackman - 1983.jpg and the reply from a deleting admin after my other effort to explain this. You've been asked to do your own search, so your reply indicates you failed to find anything, and are now grasping at straws.--Light show (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Proof is the burden of the uploader. It always winds up with your contentions of being right no matter who doesn't see it your way or how many times they don't see it that way. The number of deletions should tell you otherwise.We hope (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
First, the fact that you were the hounding tagger of about a hundred of the images, implies a non-neutral POV. Second, you have since, no doubt, recognized the fact that most of your rationales for tagging those images relied on a Corbis or another photo stock house's copy-fraudulent notices. Yet you have failed to do anything to undelete them. --Light show (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I stand by my DR tags. A non-involved admin made the decisions after the discussions. For every DR, there are at least two other people participating--the person tagging the file and the admin who makes the decision to keep or not. You still persist in blaming everyone but yourself, like a spoiled kid. We hope (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, mom. But you see, if I blamed myself for uploading a totally valid PD image, despite the fact that it later got deleted for no justified reason, I'd be an idiot. --Light show (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW-Dads tell kids that also. If there were no justified reasons, why were so many photos deleted? We hope (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This thread is really getting out of scope. We hope (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision to PD-Art text

See Template_talk:PD-Art#Proposed_revision_for_brevity_and_clarity. Please respond there. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Sunset at Montmajour 1888 Van Gogh.jpg

This painting wasn't published to the public until 2013. According to w:Sunset at Montmajour, the painting was shown to only the museum staff; would that be a publication? --George Ho (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No. "Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending" (emphasis mine). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure that it wasn't published before? If its first publication was less than 25 years ago, then it is unfree in the European Union and has to be deleted, per article 2 in the w:Copyright Duration Directive. The article about the painting is a bit unclear about whether the painting was published somewhere before that year.
User:King of Hearts, you quoted the US definition of publication above. There's no question that it is in the public domain in the United States, is there? The problem is whether the image is in the public domain in the source country, but for that, you will have to use the definition of "publication" in the Dutch law. Also, article 2 in the Copyright Duration Directive is a bit unclear: in some countries, the copyright appears to expire 25 years after the work was published, whereas in other countries, the copyright appears to expire 25 years after the work was made available to the public. EU law has two different levels of publication: "publication" and "making something available to the public". --Stefan4 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The 25-year publication right in the EU starts when it is either published or communicated to the public, provided normal copyright has lapsed. In this case, it sounds like the painting was sold at least twice between 1901 and 1908. That (sale) is almost always considered publication. Additionally, it sounds like lots of people have been aware of the painting for years or decades, just that it was not considered an authentic Van Gogh until more detailed investigations were done. I think I'd consider it published as of 1901, from the sounds of it (though it seems to have been kept private before then). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Choral public domain license and cc by-sa compatibility

There's a free musical score file published under the CPDL license, which seems to be a free license. In a project by Wikimedia Ukraine we might create a derivative work of this file (to add free Ukrainian translation of the lyrics) that we would like to upload to Commons. Therefore I have two questions: can the CPDL be compatible with cc by-sa 3.0? And if no, can we publish the derivative work (translation) on Commons under CPDL as a fallback? Thanks, YurB (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

To be "compatible" with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, it must be certified by Creative Commons and listed on this web page. To date, they have certified zero licenses.  :-) So... no, it can't be "compatible" under the terms of CC-BY-SA. The CPDL is a copyleft license, and demands that derivative works be published only with the CPDL itself, from the looks of it. It certainly looks like a free license, so I would say you would be fine uploading it to Commons using a CFDL license. Secondly, if the original German text is old enough for its copyright to expire, then that text is public domain (and not under the CFDL license), so if you base your translation on that alone, then the copyright of the translation is completely yours (i.e. is not partially controlled by someone else's copyright) so you could license that translation any way you wish (or have multiple licenses). The Catalan translation on that page certainly looks to be CFDL, but I'm unsure of the copyright of the German text. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Another way to demonstrate a licence as compatible is to express it with ccREL and then prove the compatibility either with a reasoner (ask a Semantic Web geek) or else by hand (pretty easy). Creative Commons (and GNU) use ccREL to express their licences in a robust machine-readable form. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

CC BY 3.0 on Youtube

Hi. Just wanted to make sure I got everything right and this adapted version of this material is ok to be used on Wikimedia under CC BY 3.0 license. //  Gikü  said  done  Thursday, 19 September 2013 00:46 (UTC)

I tagged it with Template:LicenseReview and added the attribution.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WWII German government images

File:The captured French General Giraud, during his daily walk. Germany, circa 1940-1941. - NARA - 532610.tif was apparently administered by the Alien Property Office and was apparently a government image. It was up for speedy deletion due to lack of license and I added a PD-because. It is in use several places on German WP. The corresponding JPG, which is incorrectly labelled PD-US-Gov is in use on enWP and elsewhere. I would think these are PD in the US under the Alien Property provisions, and in Germany as a government work or a Nazi work, but I am unsure because we do not seem to have templates for this situation and I cannot find a quick precedent. What is the correct status of this and similar works? Dankarl (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no special copyright exemption for "Nazi works" in Germany, the usual duration of copyright in Germany applies (70 years after death of the author). Also, recently a German regional court decided that the copyright exemption for government works only applies to literary works (Sprachwerke) and not to works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst), see Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. This makes me think that the photo in question is probably still copyrighted in Germany as its country of origin, except maybe if it were really anonymous (then Template:Anonymous-EU could be applied), but I wouldn't infer this just from the author not being mentioned at the immediate image source. And Germany being the country of origin, I think it would need to be deleted even if it's PD in the U.S. under the Alien Property provisions. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It would have to be Anonymous-EU to keep it. Decent chance of that, but not a sure thing. Not speedy though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
How do the rules on author disclosure work in Germany? Dankarl (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Acraea zetes caterpillar to pupae to butterfly metamorphosis by Nick Hobgood.jpg

Does the license of this Collage is valid even if no source images are provided? (For Panoramas, we do not usually publish all source files.)

If not; whether the author is required to provide freely licensed sources? Or simply linking to a source published somewhere else with a non free license to prove he is the author is enough? JKadavoor Jee 15:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There aren't many contributors in better standing here than Nick Hobgood. Unless you have evidence that one of the subimages was published elsewhere first, I'd say we can safely take his word (as implied) that he took all the subimages and that they are freely licensed. --Avenue (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have no doubt about the authorship of those works. My doubt is whether the source also need to be published here; or linked on the "adaptation" to prove the source. Collages seems a bit vague to me. JKadavoor Jee 04:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think our page on Collages is much more focussed on the situation where someone has made a collage from various images that they would not usually have taken themselves. In that case, it is certainly vital to comply with all the licenses for the component images. This may not be possible if the licenses conflict, and even where they are compatible, it will usually involve crediting all the creators at least. Linking to the component images is usually necessary to allow others to check that the licenses are compatible too.
However, if the creator of the collage also holds the copyright on all the component images, then they can release the collage under a license that is incompatible with the licenses for the component images (if they have any). So in this situation, most of what Commons:Collages says is irrelevant. It can't hurt to link to the component images, but it's not really necessary for license compliance/checking, at least if we accept that the uploader is their creator. Perhaps Commons:Collages should be more specific about the situations it is intended to cover.
This collage is an interesting example. It's released under a CC-BY-SA licenses, so you could chop it up into its component images, and they could also be released under the same CC-BY-SA license - at least at the resolution provided in the collage. Now the component images are available on Flickr under a different, non-free license (CC-BY-NC), in some cases at a higher resolution, and these higher resolution versions cannot be uploaded to Commons. --Avenue (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Avenue for the detailed reply. JKadavoor Jee 14:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Image used on Facebook

Any idea why Facebook has an image here that seems to be File:Sromaigh.jpg as uploaded by myself but not released to any other body? As far as I can see there is no attribution. W. L. Tarbert (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The license under which you've released the file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, so long as they comply with the licensing requirements, including attribution and preserving the license. The attribution and licensing information is displayed on the file description page reached by clicking on the image, in the same way that those licensing requirements are fulfilled by the two Wikipedia projects that use the image. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting and thanks for the reply. I must be much more careful about this in future - I had no idea that this kind of 'not really attributed' commercial use was legitimate and I regret allowing it. W. L. Tarbert (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a little dubious that the only attribution they have is the link back to Wikipedia -- if our page was renamed without a redirect, then they could suddenly be in violation of the license. But yes, uploading it here means the work is licensed to anyone to use it under those terms -- it has been released it to them, and everyone else. But is is pretty common for images to not have attribution on the main page like that, but only display it in a popover or something when you click the image, which is sort of the effect now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
if our page was renamed without a redirect, then they could suddenly be in violation of the license. This is a good reason to adopt the policy of not renaming pagest without a redirect, except if there is a good reason to delete the redirect.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree we should usually keep a redirect in place for renames. However the link in this case is to the Wikipedia articleimage page, and Commons has no ultimate control over how redirects are treated therethat appears.
On compliance with attribution requirements, Facebook's link back to Wikipedia is not the same as the links from the three Wikipedia pages that include this image. Each Wikipedia link goes directly to a page crediting the photographer, whereas Facebook's link is more indirect, requiring at least two clicks to find the photographer's credit. I'm not sure whether this complies with the license's requirement that such credit should be provided in a way that is "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing" to distribute the photo. I'm also unclear whether the license's requirement that credits be "at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors" applies here, but the corporate authors (Facebook, Microsoft and Nokia) are credited more prominently on the Facebook page than W. L. Tarbert and other contributors. So yes, their license compliance seems at least a little dubious. And if they aren't compliant, their license terminates automatically. (But IANAL.) --Avenue (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Renner grand piano mechanism.svg

I suppose that the copyright of the Renner company may be violated: the original can be found under unter http://www.louisrenner.com/Deutsch/komponentenansicht-der-klavierteile.asp. The licence may be invalid, too, as the work of the uploader is only the transformation from Flash to SVG. Are there any other opinions? --Telford (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's a problem. Looks like the outlines were just extracted from the flash, or something like that. Invalid license and copyright violation, yes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

US Consulate images

I was under the impression that all images by the US government with a few exceptions that covered security or contractual work were available in the Public Domain, however I find that some images from the US Consulate in Chennai are marked as CC-BY-ND. I also note that this is mostly with the account from the Chennai Consulate; the Kolkata one appears to follow standard protocol. What's the rule of thumb on these kind of images? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"The images contained in this photostream are produced by the Public Affairs Section of U.S. Consulate General in Chennai..." I would say they are PD as US government works and we can ignore any claims of no commercial or derivative works. I think other US government photo sites have tried similar wrong licensing. We can host them until an attempt to remove them through DCMA runs into the wrath of the WMF for trying to copyright images that are legally public domain.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
THanks, that's what I thought. The problem is that if I add the Flickr source, it's going to fail review either by the upload bot or by the reviewer bot, so I'm not sure what to do in this case -- perhaps there are prior examples for this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Need to upload manually and quote both the attribution on the page and the text Canoe1967 cited, linking the photostream page from which the latter is sourced. If you upload further pages from this and similar sources, watch out for donated or unofficial images. Dankarl (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, I'll upload the en:Akhil Sharma pics using this process. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Be very careful with such things, as for it to be PD they need to be the work of a US government employee as part of their official duties. You need to ascertain that they were taken by a US govt employee and that they were part of their duties. It's best to contact them via Flickr and ask them to change the licencing. russavia (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If the image was created by a foreign mission, note that the source country might not be USA: the photos might, for example, first have been published in the country where the mission is located. You also need to check whether the image is free in the source country. In some countries, the default is that the copyright belongs to the photographer (although this possibly could change if the employee has an American employment contract), and the photographer might not be required to donate his photos to the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    • The images are produced by the Public Affairs Department of the US Consulate in Chennai (I think there's one set where the photographer is identified as someone outside, and I'm not considering that for uploading at all). Sometimes they share speakers etc with the other consulates within India (as part of a country tour) and the Embassy in Delhi e.g. Hillary Clinton was at Delhi and Chennai when she was SoS, but the Delhi images were released as PD-US, but the Chennai images are marked CC-BY-ND. Default in India is of course copyrighted, but we've historically taken images from the US Embassy in Delhi (I haven't uploaded any personally but I've seen a few) as they tend to release under PD-US. I'll hold off on any uploading from Chennai until there's better clarity on this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this logo copyright free?

Does this logo (the arrows and SLIPS text) qualify {{PD-textlogo}}? I'm a bit stuck here. This is for the w:Sri Lanka Interbank Payment System article. Thanks in advance Rehman 13:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean a large red arrow with text? Ruslik (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope. The red and blue ones pointing each other (including the "SLIPS" text). Rehman 13:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Based on this precedent I would say that it is not copyrightable in USA. However I am not sure about Sri Lanka. Ruslik (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Sri Lanka law would likely be similar to UK law in this regard, and in the UK it would meet the threshold of originality. russavia (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, Ruslik and Russavia (yes it's quite close to the UK law). I guess it's a no-go for Commons then. Regards, Rehman 15:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Would this logo be below the threshold of originality?

Wikipedia:File:LARK Technologies Logo.png - IMO, it isn't sufficiently creative. --Brainy J (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on this precedent I would say that it is not copyrightable in USA. Ruslik (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Flickr account for Mexican first lady

I noticed this image of Chinese President Xi Jinping was taken from this photo. The problem is that the claimed author is the First Lady of Mexico who actually appears in the photo. Would there be some verification that the Flickr account is an official account and that these images are being released validly?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That is similar to File:Wendy Davis 2010.jpg. If you look at the Flickr image you will see the photographer in the image and claiming copyright. We have many 'self portraits' with this issue. I remember a US presidential candidate getting very upset with OTRS because they demanded a copy of the photographer contract that transferred the copyright to the subject.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I used flickr2commons to upload the original from which this image was cropped and linked it two the two images on Commons that were derived from the original. This, of course, doesn't fix anything with regards to any copyright concerns, but it clarifies the relationship and origin of the photos. —RP88 03:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have asked a person involved with Wikimedia Mexico to check this, and they believe it is official, but they will be making an enquiry with the office of the President of Mexico, and will revert back to us. I would say it is likely an official stream, in which case the images are ok, as the First Lady's office is part of the President's office, and they would likely have authority to release images they have copyright to. Anyway, bare with us, this may take a little time. Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Can i Use the Photos and Images from Wikimedia.org for my Profil in Steam or Facebook ?

Can i Use the Photos and Images from Wikimedia.org for my Profil in Steam or Facebook ? Is that legal ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalalu2000 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 23 September 2013‎ (UTC)

As a general practice, yes, images from Wikimedia Commons can be used on other sites. However, most images on Commons have license requirements that you have to comply with if you want to use the image. Most, if not all, are under some kind of free license. However, just because the images are under a free license, this doesn't necessarily mean you can use such images however you please. Each image has its licensing specified on its file description page, and these licenses probably place a few requirements on your use of the image. For example, the creators of many images on Commons require that if you use their image you have to provide "attribution," i.e. give credit to the author in a manner that they specify. For more details, please take a look at the article on how to reuse content outside Wikimedia Commons. —RP88 02:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Thanks for the answer, my english knowlage is limited. My native language is german. Can you tell me can i use this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eva,_Evita,_Per%C3%B3n_en_un_discurso_electoral,_1951.jpg without special license "remarks" ??? i want to use it in steam as my Profile Picture.

Template:PD-AR-Photo has a German license translation for that foto. It is free with no restrictions because it is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinfreiheit .--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

nobelprize.org images

Hi,

I'm willing to use a picture from the nobel prize website: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2007/capecchi_autobio_05.jpg

This image is from Edward Ramberg who is the uncle of a Nobel Prize. I've seen some pictures taken from this website, but they are from the Nobel Prize winners, but not of other people that appears in the website. How can I now if I can upload this picture on the Wiki Commons?

thanks, --Felipe Beltran Mejia (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You can upload them only if they are out of copyright both in USA and in the country of origin. Ruslik (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright, I am owner of this gif I made back in 2008.

The image in question

Alright. I uploaded it, and I am the user from photobucket who uploaded this. Before anyone ask, I made this using a program back in 2008. The source files used don't exist anymore, because the computer died. I am creating it just to use on my talk page at Lesbiangirl at en.wiki

I am posting it here, due to my suspesitions that a bot will flag it pretty soon. The file was copied and pasted throughout the web, but I am the earliest uploader, because I am in fact the maker of it. No, I did not use predetermined sprites. I made them, then used the effects the program had. Because I don't remember what that program is, I cannot say anything else really. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we can assume good faith that you are the creator. I don't know if the photobucket page still exists or whether that is considered as previously published if it is not dated. If someone attempts to delete it then you could probably email Commons:OTRS. I think they are in a huge backlog right now though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

PD confirmation

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice in wonderland 1951.jpg could use some wise input from this board.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Download_on_iTunes.svg

The image File:Download_on_iTunes.svg is marked as being licensed under the Apple Public Source License (APSL), however this is incorrect. Apple says it "must be used in accordance with the updated Marketing and Advertising Identity Guidelines". Presumably Wikimedia Foundation has agreed to this license in order to use it at Commons:Mobile app/Download (and sometimes on the main page). Commons should not be telling visitors that they are free to use this image under the terms of the APSL. I can't fix it as it is protected. The image File:Get_it_on_Google_play.svg has similar problems. It's not available under the Apache license, using it requires agreeing to Google's brand guidlines. Both of these should be using a license tag that looks kind of like the {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}, but with Apple or Google in place of Wikimedia. Can someone with Admin privedges fix this? —RP88 05:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The above mentioned guidelines are only intended to protect Apple's and Google's trademarks from dilution. In my opinion, they have no bearing on their copyright status and as such constitute non-copyright restrictions. Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the identity/brand guidelines linked above are not copyright restrictions, and so don't stop us from hosting these files. However I think {{WMF-staff-upload}} needs to be changed. As it stands, it claims that Heatherawalls (talk · contribs) created these files (not just uploaded them), which seems highly dubious.
I think there is also a problem with the licensing of the Google play graphic. I gather that under Google's licensing rules, the Apache license only applies to documentation, and other content on the site is under a CC-BY-2.5 license (with attribution requirements specified here). That would seem to include this graphic.
I'll fix these problems later today if no one objects, or beats me to it. --Avenue (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The Google license page specifically excludes "brand features" from the license. Since the Google Play Badges page says "For guidelines when using the Google Play badge and other brand assets" and the Google Play badge appears on the Brand Guidelines page, I think it is safe to conclude the Google Play Badge is not available under either Apache 2.0 or the CC-BY-2.5. —RP88 01:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that exclusion. There is also an instruction on the Brand Guidelines page as follows: "Do not modify the color, proportions, spacing or any other aspect of the badge image." Taken together, I think these make it clear that Google play graphic isn't freely licensed. I'll remove the Apache license tag from its description page. --Avenue (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Neither one appears to have evidence that the creator gave permission under the displayed license. Is it possible that Apple (and/or Google) licensed them under free licenses only via the WMF (and/or others) instead of on their own websites? And if so, did they come with appended/wrapped-around conditions? (A copyright holder is free to put any license conditions they want on the work, including "non-copyright restrictions" themselves folded into the copyright license restrictions.) --Closeapple (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I'm not surprised if some (possibly all) of the tags are incorrect. Thank you for noticing and wanting to correct them. I also have not been able to edit those pages to make corrections and I am grateful for your help. I am definitely not the author, either. ;) heather walls (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you negotiate with Apple or Google in order to get them to release these these images under a free license that they don't offer on their websites? Alternatively, are they copyrighted images that are not available under free licenses, but you, on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, agreed to use them under the standard terms offered by Apple and Google? —RP88 01:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
While the iTunes links aren't as explicit as the Google ones, there do seem to be strong grounds for doubting that the iTunes badge is freely licensed, or under the APSL specifically. So I'll remove the APSL tag from its description page. --Avenue (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If these images are not available under a free license, then Apple and Google, as the copyright holders, have the ability to attach nearly any restrictions on their use that they like, including the requirement that any user of their copyrighted work agree to comply with their brand/identity guidelines. These requirements would not be non-copyright restrictions, they would be the terms of a non-free license. —RP88 01:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
That's right. And if they are not freely licensed, hosting them would be against Commons policy. (The only exception is for Wikimedia logos and other designs copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which these are not.) So either they would need to be deleted, or Commons policy would need to be altered to allow them to stay. --Avenue (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a deltion request. Apple certainly owns the copyright of it. Someone create my process. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The DR is here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Download on iTunes.svg. I see someone is arguing that the button (including the Apple logo) is in the public domain, because the logo was published without a copyright notice before 1978 and the rest doesn't reach the (US) threshold of originality. I should have thought of that. I think the Google button would probably also fail to pass the threshold. Anyway let's see how the iTunes button DR goes. --Avenue (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't have particularly strong opinions on whether or not these two images exceed the threshold of originality in the US, my only concern was that they were tagged with the APSL and Apache copyright licenses, which I was pretty sure was incorrect. Now that the incorrect licenses have been removed, my original concerns have been put to rest. —RP88 04:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Two image files appear to be book covers

Two image files, File:Marine molluscs of the Land of Israel Joseph HELLER.jpg and File:Land Snails of the Land of Israel Joseph HELLER.jpg, are marked as the uploader's own work. Both appear to be scans of book covers, though. Wouldn't book covers be copyrighted by the books' publishers? In that case, wouldn't these be non-free content?

The uploader has a talk page at en:User talk:Tzamatz, where I've mentioned that I think there may be a problem. Thank you for your attention, Cnilep (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I nominated both for deletion -- they are indeed problems unless we get permission from the copyright owner. In the future, you can use the "Nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar when viewing the image page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Heinrich Böll Foundation, Category:Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung

Hi, anyone out here who can make a suggestion on these categories? They are in fact about the same foundation and I presumed (because language code at Commons is English), they should be within Category:Heinrich Böll Foundation, then I noticed some images like this, or this, and some more. How to deal with this? Lotje (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Moved to the Foundation cat. --Denniss (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Beetles of Russia, Western Europe and neighbouring countries by Jacobson

Files in this Category are under PD-Art. I believe that they should be instead under PD-scan since they are only scan of the book. But I am still a very beginner, may someone confirm that please? Zonderr (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And extracted bugs from that book are under various license, shouldn't they be under PD-scan too? is it possible to modify all of them (183 files so far) automatically? Zonderr (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they all should use {{PD-scan}}. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thank you for your answer. Still looking for an automated way to do that. I tried cURL, but it is too technical for me. Zonderr (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

copyright or not

During my clean up I found this File:One of my trees just after dawn. (2998641929).jpg I have seen more of them. Are they free? --Peter in s (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it was pulled from Flickr so it must have had the specified license at the time (four years after uploading). The Flickr user has since changed the license to a non-commercial variant, though that does not change the license here. The template {{Flickr-change-of-license}} should be added, but in general this type of image is kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/09&oldid=801446631"