Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/02

Is this logo copyrightable?

This is an old logo of Tuscany region, mostly forgotten (I don't know if it was registered somewhere). I wonder if it can be uploaded on Commons, in a vector version, as it is composed by very simple elements.--Carnby (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Forbes logo - meet Threshold of Originality?

I was wondering if the Forbes logo meets the threshold of originality. http://www.shermanreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Forbes-logo.jpg As it is only letters, I presume it is, however there is not currently one uploaded, so I wish to make sure.

--JoshuaKGarner (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that in general typeface is fine, font being largely irrelevant (unless you're using Wingdings or some unreadable curved letters). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} would apply. --AdmrBoltz 02:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

File:MattJaissle.jpg

The movie poster occupies quite a large portion of the photograph. Can we apply de minimis in this photo as it is actually the person holding up the poster that is the real subject of the shot, instead of the poster itself? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the poster is de minimis. It's pretty much front and centre. I suggest you list the photograph at "Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop" and ask a volunteer to blur out the poster, and then request that an administrator remove the original photograph from the file history. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Carnby at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#File:MattJaissle.jpg the copyright infringement seems to have been removed, so we probably need an administrator to delete the old first revision. (On a side note the picture doesn't seem to be updating properly with my computer for some reason, as only the direct link to the second revision shows the blurred version.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Try clearing your browser cache. It worked for me. You can ask an administrator to help delete the original version of the photograph by leaving a message at "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard". — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Barnes and Nobles in Tracy, California.JPG

Does the image of Barnes & Nobles logo in the background which is along with the shop the subject of the file qualify for Commons:Threshold of originality or Commons:De minimis? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The logo is de minimis and also PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Jimmy Edgar on the roof of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (Urban Explorers Festival 2008).webm

This cc-by-2.0 video features a musician briefly playing a keyboard. How does the copyright work for the musical part of the private performance, and should I strip the audio from the video? (Relevant: Commons:Video#Videos_and_copyright) czar ♔ 04:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Potentially three people have copyright in the musical part: the performer, the composer and the recorder. The source URL http://flickr.com/photos/66887865@N00/2519699115 gives me a page titled "Not Found on Accelerator" containing bold text "Your requested URL was not found.". However, this URL worked: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wilbertbaan/2519699115/ . To be safe I would determine who the composer is and ask them and Jimmy Edgar for a free license for the audio. -84user (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC) (Edgar apparantly gave a free license for this photo of his so he might be amenable in this case. -84user (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC))

File:PiedadDesertBADF.JPG

• 

Does Freedom of Panorama apply to this painting by Mexican painter? --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

bad audit trail for WikiEditor toolbar icons

This concerns (1) the icons at MediaWiki edit toolbar#Enhanced editing toolbar (Wikimedia Usability Initiative), namely:

• Localized icons: WikiEditor Toolbar Icons

(2) icons linked from WikiEditor Toolbar Icons, particularly (2b) WikiEditor Toolbar Icons#Symbolic Icons

(3) the Tango icons (http://tango.freedesktop.org/)

Example

For example: (1) , (2) , (3) .

Commons license/source metadata

(1) claims only

|Source=MediaWiki software
|Author=MediaWiki authors

and

{{Free screenshot|license={{GPL}}{{Wikipedia screenshot|logo=no}}}}

(2) says it came from http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/branches/wmf-deployment/extensions/UsabilityInitiative/images/wikiEditor/toolbar/ and is under the CC-BY-SA-3.0

(3) says it came from Tango and is under some sort of PD dedication

Fact checking

(3): Based on looking at /usr/share/doc/tango-icon-theme/copyright, the Tango website, and /usr/share/icons/Tango/scalable/actions/edit-find-replace.svg (with tango-icon-theme 0.8.90-5 from Debian), it seemed that (3)'s File: page described it accurately, if a bit imprecisely. Then I looked at the actual SVG file on Commons, and discovered (from the RDF metadata and some version attributes on the root element) that this file is an older version which is actually under the CC-BY-SA-2.0 license. (I expect it ought to be re-uploaded from a current version of the theme, which is under the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ instead.)

(2): I don't doubt that this file was actually obtained from that directory in SVN tree, though it's not a particularly useful place to start investigating, so I actually started looking at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/branches/wmf-deployment/extensions/UsabilityInitiative/images/wikiEditor/toolbar/, and also at https://git.wikimedia.org/tree/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FWikiEditor/c075e6a82b366f41bfdad8b7f0f3fffd7dc352a8/modules/images/toolbar where the icons seem to be kept now. The old SVN tree doesn't even seem to *have* a COPYING file, and the README has nothing relevant. The new git tree has a COPYING consisting of nothing but the GPLv2. However, if we look at our example file's history, the git history starts recently and says something vague about "copying over" some files; the SVN history, on the other hand, gives us this:

EditToolbar: Add framework for content generation dialogs and add a simple search&replace dialog. The latter still needs some love. Adds jquery-ui and adds some images to css/images/ , which is not ideal but saves us from having to edit CSS that ships with jquery-ui

However, when I go to the jquery-ui website, I don't see any demos involving icons that have any resemblance for these, so I assume they came more-or-less straight from Tango. Therefore, I have NFI where the claimed CC-BY-SA-**3.0** license comes from.

(1): The information here may technically be accurate in some sense, but would seem to imply that the icons aren't redistributable, given that the GPL is not compatible with either the GFDL or the CC-BY-SA-3.0. We can obviously do better than that.

Conclusions

If this example is at all representative,

1. Tango icons might need reuploading with the new license, and should have authors extracted from the RDF
2. Mediawiki should probably do something with RDF metadata in SVG files automatically
3. WikiEditor Toolbar Icons#Symbolic Icons unaccountably list themselves as CC-BY-SA-3.0
4. MediaWiki edit toolbar#Enhanced editing toolbar (Wikimedia Usability Initiative) need proper license tagging.
5. Someone should report the lack of license info for these icons to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

—SamB (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Hopsi planai

User:Hopsi planai has uploaded pictures, and marked them as "own work" which they are very likely not. they are related to websites like http://www.planai.at/winter/de/Home.html ,http://www.bergfex.at/schladming-planai/bilder/ , http://www.voestalpine.com/group/de/skygate and other. Since the User has also a username related to the surrounding the pictures are from, and has already worked some promotional entries on that topic in the english wiki, I wonder if he is anyhow entitled to give them in CC-license. I know how to iniciate a deletion request, but I think there is an other way to solve this. --Wer?Du?! (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC) P.S.:sorry for my bad english.

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! vielleicht schlecht für andere Mitlesende, aber deutsch geht mir doch leichter von der Hand! Du hast jetzt ganz normale LA gestellt. Ich hatte halt an so etwas wie "bitte beweise, dass du die Rechte hast, es zu veröffentlichen", oder ähnliches gedacht, aber das ist nicht wirklich vorgesehen, oder? Wenn das prozedere auch einfach durch LA in Gang gesetzt werden kann, kann ich das das nächste Mal im Zweifel einfach selbst machen. Danke für die Mühe --Wer?Du?! (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ich habe je nach Einschätzung sowohl SLA und LA als auch no-permission gestellt. Da der Benutzer nur im September 2013 aktiv war[1], erwarte ich ohnehin keine Reaktion von ihm. Vermutlich war das jemand vom dortigen Tourismusamt o.ä. Es gibt Bausteine für no-permission, no-license und no-source. Außerdem kann man jemand ja auch frei ansprechen, was ich bei einem Bild ja auch getan habe. --Túrelio (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dann bedanke ich mich nochmal und würde von meiner Seite aus sagen  Done --Wer?Du?! (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Using Nu-Cards on Commons

• 1959 Music cards.

The company was located in NY and produced a Western television series circa 1961, as well as a lot of sports cards. The music ones carry no name of the Nu-Card company and are blank on the back, which is why many dealers display the front only. The music ones carry no copyright marks; some of the sports ones were copyrighted, but a check of copyright.gov shows there were no renewals for anything by Nu-Card. The TV Western cards are like the music ones--no mark, no company name, no copyright marks and blank back. regarding the music and Western cards, would it be OK to upload them if there's no back displayed? Thanks, We hope (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License

Can I upload a photo under the creative commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License? This license should be an option allowed on Wikipedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelleDalhousie (talk • contribs) 17:36, January 23, 2014‎ (UTC)

Since it has the Non-Commercial clause, no. --AdmrBoltz 17:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So you mean, "Since it has the Non-Commercial clause, no, such a non-commercial license will not work for posting a photo to Wikipedia."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelleDalhousie (talk • contribs) 18:02, January 30, 2014‎ (UTC)

Correct. Photos on Wikimedia Commons must not have restrictions limiting their commercial use. --AdmrBoltz 18:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To be precise: At least one of the licenses available for the work must be acceptable under Commons:Licensing (i.e. allow use and modifications without regard to whether it is commercial or not). You can also provide other license options that users may choose instead of the "qualifying" license(s); but you must state that the user is allowed to choose. ({{Multi-license}} is good for doing that.) It's pretty rare on Commons for someone to provide a choice of qualifying + non-qualifying license like that, but Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing discusses it. --Closeapple (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What status tag(s) to use with this file?

What would be the best status tag(s) for File:Guillaume Apollinaire 1914.jpg? I expanded the description somewhat, so readers can have a better idea of the context, but for now I left the unspecific PD-US tag that the uploader had placed, although it does not state a rationale. I think it should be replaced by specific tag(s), at least one stating a rationale for the status in the United States and maybe another for the status in France, if necessary. Would this type of work meet the conditions of PD-ineligible by nature in the U.S.? Or if it is copyrightable, would there be an anonymous author (or would the two protagonists be the authors, as they sort of created the film-like sequence) and would the photograph be considered to have been published in 1914 (PD-1923) or in 1944 (what status then)? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the apparent intent to produce a flipbook and the (at least minimal) creative effort, I think it would meet the minimal level of "an original work of authorship" under US law. If someone sets up a camera to capture a work, I'd say that generally fits the level; my question would really be about security cameras that run forever and aren't designed to author an original work. (The question about security cameras has been raised in US courts, but I don't know that it's ever been ruled on.) The modern definition of 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. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication."; while it's changed a bit over the years, I think 1944 is clearly the date of publication. I don't think there was any chance this was published in 30 days in the US, so if it was under copyright in France in 1996, it's under copyright in the US. I'm going to leave it up to someone else to say whether France would consider this an anonymous work, though I think that impossible unless there was a third person involved. (Actors don't typically get copyright on movies, but directors do, and if there's no directors, then the actors would effectively be directors, no? Motion pictures is a bit of an analogy here, anyway...) If André Rouveyre is considered an author in France, it would neither be in the public domain in the US or France.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Under Swedish law, performers hold the copyright to their performances, and can control the use of sound recordings of their performances (but not of video recordings I think). I think that they only hold any rights if their dialogue meets the threshold of originality for literary works, and there are also other requirements. I don't know whether actors can control the use of the soundtrack of films in which they act, but I wouldn't rule out that possibility. Things may be different in other countries. Generally speaking, Swedish law seems to suggest that a film often will have hundreds of different copyright holders who control the rights to different parts of the film and that you need permission from each one of them in order to use the film unless otherwise stated in their employment contracts. This is probably is probably impractical in most situations, so I would assume that employment contracts for film companies contain specific terms about the copyright to the film.

If this was anonymous, taken in 1914 and first published in 1944, then the copyright would, I believe, expire 50 years after publication, meaning expiration in 1995. In 1996 (after the URAA date), the copyright would be restored and changed to 70 years, meaning expiration in 2015. This would make the photo fine for USA, but not for France until next year. However, in France there is also the question of war extensions: a couple of years for creation before the end of WWI, a couple of more years for creation before WWII and, if the photographer died for France, an additional 30 years. Do these extensions also apply to anonymous works? In particular, how do you know whether an anonymous photographer died for France? If wartime extensions apply to anonymous works, then this wasn't fine in France on the URAA date, and in that case the file is unfree in USA. In France, it seems that the EU copyright term had the effect that the wartime extensions only apply if old term+extensions is longer than the EU term (without extensions), which essentially requires that the anonymous photographer must have died for France in order to extend beyond 70 years.

There is also the question on whether the author is anonymous in the first place. Also, if the 1914 thing counts as publication under French law but not under US law, then it's more interesting and presumably PD in both countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To add a few more comments:

Sections L123-8 and L123-9 of the French Intellectual Property Code, which provide the war extensions of 6 years and 8 years, do not exclude anonymous works from their application. Section L123-10, which requires a death certificate of an identified person for the dead for France extension of 30 years, would seem to practically exclude anonymous works from its application. If there is a French copyright at all on this photograph, the computation of its term does not pose a problem as such, if the answers to all the preliminary questions can be clearly determined.

Some of those questions are: if, under the legal definitions, this photograph must be considered strictly as a photograph or if its being part of a sequence of photographs might open a possibility for assimilating it to another type of work; if, given the particular context of its making, this photograph (or possibly other type of work) is copyrightable; if this photograph (or possibly other type of work) has an author; who the author(s) is (are), if any; what was the year of publication; and is the answer to each of the preceding questions identical or different under the French IPC and under the United States Copyright Act.

Depending on how one answers each of the above questions, one can arrive at different reasonable conclusions. The difficulty is in determining the correct answer to each question. For example, although the uploader did not state an explicit rationale, apparently he concluded that the automated part of the picture-taking process resulted in this photograph being similar to a photo from a modern photo booth, having no author and being in the public domain at least in the United States. That sounds like a reasonable possibility. For a different example, the above reasoning by Prosfilaes concludes that the two identified people pictured on the (original non-cropped) photograph are the authors of a creative sequence and thus the authors of this image, copyrighted at least in the United States. That sounds like a reasonable possibility also.

If we try to tell the nature of this image in light of the paragraphs of section L112-2 of the French IP Code, it looks like this image might possibly be either part of an "audiovisual work" covered by paragraph 6 or a "photographic work" covered by paragraph 9. The qualification of a work as being an "audiovisual work" or a "photographic work" has important consequences because, among other things, it determines differently who can be the author of the work. Paragraph 6 covers "cinematographic works and works consisting of animated sequences of images, whether sonorized or not, named audiovisual works". (Per the definition, the "audio" part of "audiovisual" appears to refer to something optional). Paragraph 9 covers "photographic works and works made with techniques analogous to photography". So, in a case like this, which of paragraph 6 or paragraph 9, if any, takes precedence over the other?

The photograph of Apollinaire was obviously made with the technique of photography. But in order for a photograph to be considered a copyrightable photographic work, it must be a "work of the mind". Given the very high threshold of original creativity required by the French courts for a photograph to be considered copyrightable as a "work of the mind" that reflects the personality of the author, it is not obvious if a photograph like this one could meet the required threshold of copyrightability in France, even if a "creator" of this photograph could be clearly identified. The copyrightability is even less obvious if the qualification of someone as a possible creator is itself not obvious, given the at least partly automated process. So, if the image is a non-copyrightable photograph in France (and if the image is not otherwise copyrighted there as part of an audiovisual work), then it leaves only the matter of the determination of its copyright status in the United States. If the image meets the threshold for being potentially copyrightable in France as a "photographic work" (considered as such, not as part of an audiovisual sequence), then who would be the author of such "photographic work"? Apollinaire and Rouveyre had nothing to do with the technical settings of the photographic process, i.e. setting the lighting, camera focus, etc. They merely stood in the existing setting and they talked spontaneously. This leaves, as possible creator(s), of one or more anonymous employee(s) of the studio, who had pre-arranged the set, the lights, the camera, and started the machine, although we don't know the details. If we follow this path of a copyrighted work attributed to an anonymous author under the French IP Code, then this finding could probably be carried over to determine the author under the U.S. Copyright Act, and then the other important point would be the date of publication under the U.S. Copyright Act. If the copyright owner in this scenario is Biofix or its anonymous employee(s), and if in 1914 that copyright owner sold (distributed) the only copy (or possibly two copies) of the work, without a known restriction on further reproduction, to the only people who at that time had an interest of buying it, Apollinaire and Rouveyre, then might this constitute publication in 1914? If so, then PD-1923. If not, then the publication was in 1944 and the work is still under copyright in France and in the United States.

Now, back to a loose thread we left above, about the hypothesis of considering this image as a part of an "audiovisual work" under the French IP Code and not as a "photographic work". The qualification as an "audiovisual work" would seem to require 1) finding the existence of an animated sequence of images and 2) giving precedence to this aspect over the technical process for making the images. There is a sequence of images, but 1) can it be said to be an animated sequence? and 2) can that aspect take precedence over the fact that the image is a photograph? The sequence can be animated, if the photographs are in the flip book and if the book is actually flipped. (Come to think of it, the wording of the title of Rouveyre's 1944 book, Apollinaire filmé en 1914 - Reproduction des 50 images en reconstitution de la petite machine animée, looks worded exactly as someone would have worded it if they wanted to assert a claim of copyright on this ground, perhaps because they felt uncertain about the copyright status of the images.) So, if we explore this hypothesis of an animated sequence of images, is the actual sequence original and creative enough to be a "work of the mind" that reflects the personality of the author(s), and if so who is (are) the author(s)? If the threshold of creation for the existence of an "audiovisual work" is met, then, per section L113-7 of the IP Code, its authors are the physical persons who do the intellectual creation of the work, and normally the authors of the scenario, of the adaptation, of the dialogues, of the music, and the director are the co-authors of the "audiovisual work". Rouveyre wrote that the sequence and the conversation were unprepared ("I turned to Apollinaire and I said: 'We should move, say something, or we will look like two idiots.' That made him laugh and he said a few words."). So, for this sequence, there's no scenario, no adaptation, no music. That leaves, maybe, a dialogue, improvised as it was, and possibly some notion of direction. Enough to meet the threshold in France? If so, the sequence is under copyright in France. If not, what is the status in the United States? If it is not copyrightable in France but copyrightable in the U.S. and if the authors are Apollinaire and Rouveyre, as determined independently under the U.S. Copyright Act, then the sequence was published by one of its authors in 1944. And in that case, although the work was obviously out of copyright in France on the URAA date in 1996, the reason of it was not the expiration of its copyright term. Therefore, in such cases, there are Commons users who conclude that the URAA applies to the work (although that has some strange consequences) and the work is under copyright in the United States.

-- Asclepias (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What makes "a photo from a modern photo booth" uncopyrightable? Is there case law on the subject? I would assume that the people in the booth would have a copyright on the photos, since they positioned the subjects and triggered the camera. I tend to assume that things are copyrightable, at least under US law, and have never seen a case besides slavish copying to show otherwise. As I said above, I don't think even something like a security camera is an established exception in US law, though I'd argue for that being uncopyrightable.

The authors under US law isn't relevant; as per the URAA and some Russian journalism case, it would be the same as under French law. I'd like to say that if it wasn't copyrighted ever in France, the URAA wouldn't restore it {edit: but the URAA clearly says a restored work "is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection"; I don't know what Congress intended there.}

A Course in Miracles (Court judgment) is one of my go-to cases for publication in the US, and between that and the definition above, I put emphasis on "to the public", which Apollinaire and Rouveyre definitely weren't with respect to this work; if they were the copyright holders, then it definitely wouldn't be publication.

I'm definitely at a loss for the French law side; if you want to say that it was never copyrighted in France or out of copyright in 1996, I certainly won't press a DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Simeon prencipe de Giorgiani.JPG

This file is clearly non copyrightable as per {{PD-Art}}; however that reproduction is watermarked with a copyright symbol by the Vatican archive. It's OK to ignore the watermark and remove it, keeping it on Commons?--Carnby (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It seems much, much preferable to get a better copy, since it's such a big watermark.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

However, a version of that file without watermark wouldn't be a copyright infringement, right?--Carnby (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo of metro station and Kazakhstan FoP

I have a question, is metro station (in my case Kazakhstan) extempted of No FoP ? I read articles about it, I saw paragraph allowing Inside of public place and Free Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place. From here [1]. I know there are photos of metro in states where there is No FoP.

Photo:

We also have photos of Almaty train stations for some time now. Also same situation in Russia, despite "No FoP". So I suppose they are extempted. According to some other photos in category I put same license :

--Mile (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, they can not be kept on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Photography in the service of a company

Does a photographer retain the rights to the photo he takes if it was produced during the course of his work at a company, or does the company own the copyright to the photo by virtue of having directed him to do so, and the photo is not an "original" (Commons:Threshold of originality: "In this context, 'originality' refers to 'coming from someone as the originator/author' insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality") expression of himself in any way? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

To some extent, it depends on the jurisdiction, but what you describe would be considered a work for hire, and at least in the US, the employer or commissioning party would hold the copyright. It doesn't really have anything to do with originality in the sense of threshold of originality, though. An employer can give their employees free reins to express themselves creatively, and the employer will still hold the copyright. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably still in copyright

This image File:Michael Collins "Free State Demonstration" March 13, 1922.jpg which is a featured image and in the people section of 2013 POTY, may not be in the public domain as licenced after all. This deletion nomination refers to another of this photographers images that was deleted here and this enwiki deletion discussion concerning the same image, also claims the photographer was still alive circa 1947, which makes this too late for life+70 and is the reason the picture of Michael Collins, was deleted there. Ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say but seeing that no one has commented to disprove the issues pertaining to this image, it has been nominated for deletion here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Collins "Free State Demonstration" March 13, 1922.jpg. Ww2censor (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets logo.png

Can we call {{PD-textlogo}} for this one? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say no. Desing of the lettering is to too detailed and varying. — Edokter (talk) — 12:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume it would not even be {{PD-textlogo}} if it was pure black on white text. With the texture it is certainly not. --Patrick87 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should do a further review of Facu Carneiro's uploads, which seem to all comprise of similar logos. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Two photos of Yosemite National Park cabins -- works of the US federal government?

The first photo in question is the photo of the wooden cabin on this page which seems to be related to the US National Park Service Office of Land, Resources, & Planning. It has been said that the List of Classified Structures system involves third-party contribution on the IT side of things but it is not said that the photos are from third parties. In addition, in the Camp Curry Cultural Landscape Report (12.5MB) from the US NPS, there is a photo of a damaged wooden cabin on page 149. No source or photographer credit is given for this photo, though there are other photos (particularly historic ones) in the same report that have come from third party sources. The photo of the damaged cabin is of course much newer given that the damage happened in 2008. The question is whether the two mentioned photos could be treated as works of the US federal government (specifically the US National Park Service.) Any thoughts? --Gazebo (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this public domain?

Hi, I have a copyright question. Specifically, are the photos on this page copyrighted? The are from the US State Department website, which says:

"Unless a copyright is indicated, information on State Department websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. State Department as source of the information is appreciated.

If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. For photos without captions or with only partial captions, hold your cursor over the photo to view the "alt tag" for any copyright information. Please note that many photos used on this website are copyrighted. Only State Department photos are in the public domain."

The alt text for the photos all say "State Department Image", so they should be clear, right? I'm just worried because the photos don't seem at all connected, that is, they were probably given to the State Department by the subjects themselves, so should I trust that State Department cleared the licensing before using the images? Maybe this is obvious, but I've never uploaded images to Commons before, and I don't want to do things wrong on my first try. Tdslk (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I share your doubts. In theory, the State Dept alt text should mean what it is supposed to mean, but when it looks questionable, as in this case, we can exercise reasonable caution. Mistakes can happen and may have been undetected by the web personnel who wrote the webpage. When possible, perhaps we should preferably use the photos of the same persons at [2], which are much more certainly public domain photos. Also, about the photos used on the problematic webpage, you can search and see if you can check their copyright status at their original location. For example, this photo is on a site whose contents are offered under the license CC-by 2.0 Brasil [3]. It should be attributed to its author whose name is mentioned there. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Flcikr stream of Angélica Rivera de Peña

Hello,

I have some doubt that some images from this stream [4] are really under CC-BY-SA (File:Comida con el Presidente de la República Francesa, François Hollande, París, Francia, 17 octubre 2012 (8137216578) (2)-crop.jpg, [5]). Regards, Yann (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There was some discussion of this flickr account earlier in September 2013. User:Russavia created a category Category:Photographs from Angélica Rivera de Peña's Flickr stream for tracking purposes and mentioned that a person involved with Wikimedia Mexico would try to get an official statement from the office of the President of Mexico regarding the copyright status of these images. I don't know the current status of that effort. @Russavia, can you comment? —RP88 08:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Portrait of Elizabeth Vernon

This portrait of Elizabeth Vernon of c. 1595 is PD-Art in the US, but is licensed CC-NC-by-SA (?in the UK?) by Flickr User Mary Harrsch. Can I use this with the PD-Art-100 + PD-copyright license, and how exactly do I construct that in the template? Thanks for your help. - PKM (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Licensed-PD-Art-two|PD-old-100|PD-1923|rawphotolicense=[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode CC BY-NC-SA 2.0]}} ? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it proper to use PD-1923 when there is no evidence that the image has ever been published? (I see people do this, but it seems odd to me.) - PKM (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah... I suppose it's not. Then {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|rawphotolicense=[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode CC BY-NC-SA 2.0]}} ? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If the Flickr image is validly licensed as CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0, I'd probably use the following license tag:

{{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|rawphotolicense={{cc|Attribution '''NonCommercial''' ShareAlike Generic 2.0|by-nc-sa/2.0/|nowarn=yes|category={{Void}} }} }}

—RP88 20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all! - PKM (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Facebook, YouTube, Imageboards, other general media sharing websites

I've noticed based on some past deletion discussions at Commons:Deletion requests that there happen to be some photographs and/or logos of 'organizations' and 'groups' which are represented on Facebook and other general media sharing sites, uploaded to Commons without proper attribution of the indicated source. However, oftentimes when I check Google Images for a potential copyright infringement, the Facebook/YouTube link is the only link that pops up with an exact duplicate match to or scaled-down version of the version uploaded on Commons. It's also hard to check given the "user-contributed" (wiki-like) nature of the content, whether or not the image on Facebook was itself ripped from another website, or from a Wikipedia fair use image, or from a Wikipedia image ready to be uploaded to Commons. YouTube (youtube thumbnails, not necessarily the videos) also has a very vague "Standard YouTube license" in place of Creative Commons, and it and Facebook have very difficult-to-find-if-not-outright-impossible places for their users to indicate copyright licenses. Contrast the ones easily found at the bottom of every major website's main page, containing the text "© <organization name>" or similar with an appropriate link to a ToU.

So I'd like some advice when I find an image that has a duplicate on Facebook based on a GImages search, but nowhere else. Would it be alright to label it as a copyright violation, or have an administrator more versed in the law judge it at DR? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If an image is copied here from somewhere else without a proper permission, it is a copyright violation, whatever the source might be. So yes, you can tag these as {{Copyvio}}. If not sure, please create a proper deletion request instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Images from Wasabcon

I went to double-check the license on some uploads and I spotted what looked like a possible contradiction, so I'm raising it to get feedback from others. The image I was specifically looking at was File:Moon Jung-Hee.jpg, which has [6] as the source. I don't read Korean myself, so I tossed the page into Google Translate. Yes there is a Wiki-friendly CC license present (CC Attribution) but elsewhere on the page I see "This post is re-posted to other sites, and specifically prohibits the unauthorized secondary processing." (translated from "본게시물은 타사이트로의 재게시및 무단2차가공 특별히 금지합니다") That means to me No Derivatives and thus making it ineligible for us to use. Should we go by the license or by the text?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talk • contribs) 13:42, January 17, 2014‎ (UTC)

Note that I asked the blog owner, and received answer was to follow the license. —레비Revi 13:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

License verification for third-party images

General question: I found the guide Commons:Contributing your own work, but I didn't find a guide for uploading open-licensed works by third parties.

Specific question: I want to upload some CC-by-sa images from an Australian government departments site, ARENA. The copyright page states:

All material presented on this website is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence, with the exception of:

• the Commonwealth Coat of Arms
• the ARENA logo
• content supplied by third parties
• other content as specified.

...

ARENA has made all reasonable efforts to:

• clearly label material where the copyright is owned by a third party

The images in question are not labelled as coming from a third party.

My questions:

• Is that good enough, and can I just uploaded the pictures to Commons with a link to the copyright page?
• If I obtain a higher resolution image from ARENA, e.g. by email, I assume that's not covered by the copyright statement above. If that's the case, how do I go about an getting acceptable, recognised release under the same CC license?

Thanks. -- Chriswaterguy (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

When there is an unambiguous license specified by the copyright holder like that, it's good enough. Provided the images are not labelled as coming from a third party, use the {{Cc-by-3.0-au}} license on them. It is when images are *not* explicitly licensed by the copyright holder, and a private email was used to obtain the licensing statement, that the procedures at COM:OTRS would be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

In answer to your question on resolution: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_CC_license_to_low-resolution_copies_of_a_licensed_work_and_reserve_more_rights_in_high-resolution_copies.3F Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ancient coins

There are some images in Ukrainian Wikipedia that picture some ancient coins that are clearly in public domain themselves. The problem is that the photos of them are taken by a museum and these coins are not really two-dimensional objects to be put under {{PD-Art}} Does the museum hold any copyright for these images? Some examples of images in question: uk:Файл:Трихалк Акроси.jpeg, uk:Файл:Файл:Діобол Саммака.jpg, uk:Файл:Денарій Інісмея.jpeg--DixonD (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet already. --DixonD (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No freedom of panorama for furniture in France

As some of you may have noticed, there was recently a case where the French Court of Cassation concluded that Getty Images violated the copyright of a fauteuil and a chaise longue by distributing photos of them. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Le Corbusier for a deletion request for some photos of the chaise longue. There do not seem to be any photos of the fauteuil on Commons. Also, reading this blog post about the court ruling, I'm worried that we might currently take de minimis too liberally. I'm not sure how big effects that this will have on Commons as I assume that most pieces of furniture are below the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm curious about what else this may apply to. If a chair is covered by copyright in France, then what about a car, plane or boat? Should Category:Vehicles_in_France be cleared out too? --ghouston (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm somehow hoping that a lot of furniture, cars and other things are below the threshold of originality, but in the worst case, we might have to do that. COM:TOO#France lists some interesting examples, and I've heard of other examples. I'm not sure exactly what quality requirements you should use. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • However, a Google Images search for "LC2" and "Corbusier" doesn't make me very happy. To me, it looks like a very standard and simple fauteuil... The LC4 chaise longue looks a bit more special. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Here's an appeal for the application of common sense rather than deletion sprees. There is a massive difference between unique artworks and mass produced objects from a pattern book. This case is about iconic design pieces of furniture that are instantly recognizable as Le Corbusier and the case only relates to Le Corbusier, it is not a solid precedent for furniture in general, and sets no precedent at all for photographs taken outside of France. This is a weird marginal single judgement in France and I doubt that this sort of copyright extremism would be indulged in the same way by courts in other countries. I would welcome further cases to be taken to court. --Fæ (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if there's a massive difference from a copyright point of view. You don't lose the copyright to something just because you make and sell a million copies, the question is whether the design is copyrightable in the first place, which this judgement implies may apply to anything that was "recognizable". Of course it's Commons iself that voluntarily subjects itself to all of the world's copyright systems and their quirks. It could probably get away with following only the copyright law of the USA, it's place of publication, perhaps with warnings on images for reusers in other countries. --ghouston (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • For example, Category:Citroën 2CV is a very recognisable car model. Is it copyrighted? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I thought it would not be, they'd have to rely on w:en:Industrial_design_rights or some such thing if they wanted to stop other manufacturers making copies. However I don't know exactly how French copyright law is worded and what exactly it may cover, and you have to wonder given this chair example. --ghouston (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • It's probably something like the coverage of "a work of artistic craftsmanship" in the UK law. There's some discussion here about what that may include. --ghouston (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
        • At least in Sweden, design rights do not nullify copyright. This seems to be provided by Article 10 of the Swedish copyright act, which also states that semiconductor circuits aren't copyrighted. Since French courts sometimes decide that various utilitarian objects are copyrighted, I would assume that French law is the same as Swedish law on this point. On the other hand, in the UK, design rights do nullify copyright (see e.g. w:Interlego v Tyco Industries). --Stefan4 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Users who might be interested in this issue should read the actual ruling of the Court, Getty Images v. Fondation Le Corbusier (2012), by preference to a blogger's short comment. The blogger does not offer a summary but a comment and, IMO, he might be partly misinterpreting the Court's ruling. I think the blogger might be mistaken when he believes that an inclusion actually termed "accessory" by the court could be a violation of copyright. The blogger may be correct when he warns that there can be a violation of copyright even when the copyrighted object may arguably not be the main subject of a photograph, but he equates "not the main subject" with "accessory nature" and he believes that the fact that a copyrighted object is clearly visible and identifiable can constitute a violation of copyright even when its inclusion is found by a court to be "accessory". That is not what the Court's ruling says. Actually, it was only Getty Images (the losing party in the case) who argued that the inclusion was "accessory" and who claimed, in the submission for appeal, that the "lower" court of appeal (the Cour d'appel de Paris) had not dealt with this issue of "accessory nature". But that argument of appeal made by Getty was rejected by the Court of Cassation, who says that the lower court had actually described the prominence of the objects in each photo before reaching the conclusion that the objects were clearly visible and identifiable. IMO, that rejection of Getty's claim of appeal implies necessarily that the Court of Cassation judged that the lower court had indeed dealt with the issue of "accessory nature" and that it had indeed found that the inclusions were not "accessory" in the photographs in question.

The incompatibility of a judicial finding of "accessory nature" with a finding of copyright violation seems clear in a ruling of the Cour d'appel de Paris (2008), confirmed by the Court of Cassation, in the case SAIF v. Maia films (2011). Copyrighted educational material was deliberately included in scenes of a film about life in a classroom, and this copyrighted material was visible and identifiable, yet the courts ruled that the inclusion of that material was accessory and thus did not constitute a violation of the copyright. The Court of Cassation upheld the ruling of the "lower" court of appeal (the Cour d'appel de Paris). But the text of the ruling of the Cour d'appel de Paris is itself interesting, as it specifies that an inclusion cannot both be found "accessory" and a violation of copyright. It's either one or the other (or it can be neither, of course). If the inclusion is "accessory" in the jurisprudential acception, then that inclusion is not a copyright violation.

From the rulings of the courts on that topic, the general conclusion that I draw is that the qualification of an inclusion as being "d'un caractère accessoire" (i.e. being of an "accessory nature"), or not, in the specific jurisprudential meaning of "accessory nature", must be evaluated in the particular context of each case, taking into account the type of pictured object (a designer piece of furniture, a building, ...), and the type of reproduction (a photograph, a film, ...), in order to tell if an inclusion qualifies, or not, as "accessory", in the specific jurisprudential meaning of this expression. The fact that a copyrighted object is clearly visible and identifiable is only one of several observations and criteria that can be taken into consideration, and weighted together with other observations and criteria, in the particular context of each case, in order to evaluate if an inclusion will be qualified of "accessory" or not. A defence that invokes "accessory nature" will be evaluated in light of all those elements and will be more easy or more difficult depending on the circumstances. It's a matter of weighting the criteria in the particular context. A photographer can remove a piece of furniture from a controlled interior set, but he can't remove a building or fixed work from a public street when he photographs the street. In the case of Getty v. Corbusier, the copyrighted furniture was deliberately included and each photograph constituted the full relevant context, so when additionally the furniture was clearly visible and identifiable in the foreground or in the center of the photographs, that didn't leave much else for the court to examine for concluding that the inclusions were not "accessory". In the case of SAIF v. Maia, the copyrighted material was deliberately included and was visible and identifiable, but the film constituted a larger context which provided a counterweight and allowed the court to reach the conclusion that the inclusions were "accessory". In the case Daniel X. v. Didier Y. (2005) (Place des Terreaux), the copyrighted work was visible and identifiable on the photograph but, as part of a public place, the work was only one of the elements of that photographed place and thus it was "accessory".

Anyway, the notion of "accessory nature" in the French jurisprudence, interesting as it may be for a discussion here, is not necessary to decide of the deletion request linked above. On each of the three images nominated for discussion, the chair is so completely the sole prominent object of the photograph that it can't reasonably be said to be "accessory". There may be other issues to clarify in that deletion request (e.g. for what reason would one want to apply French law to those photos?), but the "accessory nature" is not really an issue there.

-- Asclepias (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The "accessory" argument does not worry me much. It's the fact that a very simple chair was recognized as having a copyright which may have very serious consequences for us (and others). These chairs are not unique work of art, but mass produce articles you may buy in any high-end shop [7]. Copyright law is getting from bad to worse in that precise detail. :(( Yann (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

w:file:Altgens.jpg

Is this image free? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 11:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If it was published in 1998 for the first time, no. If it was published in 1963 (or before 1977) without a copyright notice, or without subsequent renewal, yes. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Earliest demonstrable was 1994; in either event, that answers the question, and thank you. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 12:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If this press photo issued w/o a copyright notice in 1979 in the US was used on album cover what is the copyright?

My question is about this press photo of the musician Rick James that was issued circa 1979 around the time his album Fire It Up was released. The album cover uses the same photo of James used in the press photo, and this other product page confirms the original photo was issued without a copyright notice. What would the copyright status of that photo be? Would it be eligible for Commons under Template:PD-US-1978-89? Thank you. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

From what one understands, the photo would be out of copyright in the US unless the photo's copyright was registered within 5 years of its publication. --Gazebo (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that? I didn't think there was a time limit on registration.--Nowa (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Page 5 of Circular 3 from the US Copyright Office has relevant info, as does Peter Hirtle's copyright chart.

Excellent. Thank you.--Nowa (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

File:SR 589 ends.jpg

Can someone verify that I did everything correctly here? The {{PD-FLGov}} template just seems a little strange given that most FDOT pages (though not this one) have a copyright notice. --NE2 (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That image does indeed appear to a public record created by FDOT (not one of the Florida agencies with an exception in FL law) and I don't think it falls under the generic FL "data processing software" exception either. We host other FDOT images (e.g. File:Miami's_Midtown_Interchange,_circa_1960s.jpg, etc.). I think you're fine. I slightly updated the sourcing to make it easier to verity the image source. —RP88 03:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait, this page says the images "are gathered by a consultant under contract to the Transportation Statistics Office." This makes things less clear. —RP88 04:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"public record made or received" by an "employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf" sounds to me like it applies to works for hire as well. --NE2 (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A plain reading of the laws' wording seems to indicate that "made or received in connection with official business" is the standard for Florida records. For example:

• Constitution of Florida, Article I, Section 24(a):

  Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf

• Florida Statutes, section 119.011(12):

  “Public records” means all [...] tapes, photographs, films, [...] or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency.

--Closeapple (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the PD status only exists for public records authored by the government -- if a private copyright existed previously, becoming a public record does not change that copyright. If the work was only created specifically for the government in a project they funded, that might qualify though, as more of a work-for-hire situation. It gets into the gray area of commissioned work, but the U.S. federal law has a note where they say if the government pays an outside contractor simply in lieu of having one of their own employees do it, it's still basically work for hire. But not all commissions would fall under that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Any more opinions? I'm thinking it's PD, but again what worries me is that FDOT does claim copyright over various other works in seeming violation of the law: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/geomap/Alac_c.pdf http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/geographicMapping.shtm#map_copyright --NE2 (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the PD decision was made by the courts, and the government lost the case (granted a county government). Some branches may continue to claim copyright regardless. Secondly, a boilerplate copyright notice is very common in web page software, so they may simply have configured the software to say them as they owner, and not bothered to remove the notice entirely. It's not as clear-cut a situation as the federal government, where the PD status is black-and-white in statutory law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is an excellent opinion on the presumption of a State having copyright privileges by the attorney general of Minnesota. It may help shed some light on the Florida situation.--Nowa (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper headline from 1935

Hi, is the license okay for this image (to the right) that I just uploaded? It's a NYT headline from 1935. This source says that headlines may be de minimus and therefore not protected by copyright.. Thus, for example, it's fine for any website to type a headline with a link to the full article. If I were to simply quote this headline in a footnote, surely that would be no copyright violation, so it would seem that a mere image of the same material could not be a violation either.

NYT May 4, 1935

Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In general yes, short phrases and titles are not copyrightable -- see here. It doesn't take much... the summary sections are getting closer... but I'd lean towards keeping it. However do note that many things are not violations due to fair use, and Commons cannot accept material under that rationale -- if a use of that image could be a violation if used in another context, it would be problematic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion and the link. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Heidegger.jpg

Hi,

is this file free? The newspaper was published in November 1933.

thanks Filinthe (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

is this picture of Conington in the public domain?

Hi. I can only find one picture of John Conington, the one that appears in this book (scroll down a bit, page 442). That book was published in 1997, so of course it is still under copyright, but what about the picture itself? I believe its copyright already expired long ago, since it was taken around 1856, so I wonder – would one be allowed to upload it to Commons? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Do US patents have copyright protection?

I have a user on my talk page at English Wikipedia who has claimed that US patent holders surrender the copyrights to their drawings to the US patent office unless they specifically affix a notice. Please see here.

Is this true? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nowa is operating under the false premise that a publication of the federal government is equivalent to a work of the federal government. 17 U.S.C. § 105 speaks to works created by federal employees in the course of their regular duties. Patents, conversely, are generally created by private entities for submission to the USPTO. The USPTO, by mere acceptance, hosting and/or publication, does not become the work's creator or copyright holder. As a perhaps more accessible example: Scholastic, Inc. is the U.S. publisher and distributor of the Harry Potter books. Scholastic, however, as the mere publisher, has not acquired the copyrights associated with the Harry Potter series, which remain with J.K. Rowling. (Scholastic, Inc. v. Stouffer. 221 F.Supp.2d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)) Similarly, if submission of a patent to the USPTO were to waive any intellectual properties, such surrender would be expected to be explicitly stated; indeed, 37 CFR 1.71(e) says no such thing and speaks only to conditions for the placement of "a copyright or mask work notice" (emphasis added). Notices are no longer required to secure a copyright claim. Эlcobbola _talk 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the position you take over on your EN talk page is largely correct. The vast majority of the illustrations in patents published before March 1, 1989 are PD for lack of copyright notice. Commons has templates for this situation (i.e. {{PD-US-patent}} and, specifically, {{PD-US-patent-no notice}}). Illustrations in patents published after March 1, 1989 are likely to be protected by copyright unless they are PD for a reason unrelated to their appearance in a patent; a typical example would be an illustration that qualifies for {{PD-ineligible}}. —RP88 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

w:Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution says that's true, and the US Patent Office says that's true, but the section of federal regulation they point to (mentioned on this page (search for copyright), since the US Patent Office links are broken) only put requirements on how a copyright notice can be affixed, including the requirements that if a copyright notice is affixed, the following disclaimer is:

A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.

I can't find citations to support the case, but that is a link to the Patent Office making the claim, so it's not a trivial misunderstanding on the part of the user.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. While researching my response, I discovered that many of these issues have been dealt with in detail in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-patent-no notice The “1989” restriction was added to the template at the close of the deletion discussion, but I didn't see anything in the discussion to indicate that this was the consensus position. Nor did any of the references cited in the discussion specifically address the issue of whether or not one was free to make facsimile reproductions of published patents. Did I miss something? By the way, I fully accept the position that post 1989 patent content is copyrighted irrespective of the provision of notice. That's not the issue (at least for me). The issue is, is it acceptable to include patent images or text in Wikipedia etc. given that in order to provide notice, the copyright holder must also state “The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure...” (37 CFR 1.71(e))”--Nowa (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, that sounds a lot like the release of a non-copyright restriction. The creator is saying that s/he doesn't have a problem with anyone seeing the document, not that it's OK for downstream people to make use of it in any way that they see fit. Compare that with open-records laws in several states; while some (notably Florida and California) have taken this so far as to include copyrights, many have not. It is one thing to say, "anyone has a right to see this." It is quite another to say, "anyone may make reuse of this for their own for-profit purposes." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What sounds like release of non-copyright restrictions? If there is a notice, the person claiming copyright says that people can reproduce it, provided they make a facsimile reproduction, sort of like a CC-BY-ND. If there is a notice, then yes, it should be taken to Wikipedia. If there isn't a notice on pre-1989 stuff, it's simple PD-US-no notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, I agree with your points. The key issue, however, is “post 1989-no notice”. This reference, written by a registered US patent attorney in 2004, states quite clearly “...in the absence of a copyright notice, anyone is free to copy and disseminate the drawings of an issued patent for any purpose” Jester, Michael, “Patents and Trademarks Plain & Simple", Career Press 2004, p 65 “Any purpose” includes making a profit. Numerous for-profit services make patent images freely available without any consideration being given to the original content creators. If this situation had changed as of 1989, we would have seen court cases by now. As far as I can tell, there have been none. I think it's time to update the appropriate patent templates and make it clear that in the absence of a copyright notice, post 1989 patent documents are free content. If there is a copyright notice, however, then I don't think it is free content since the notice only allows facsimile reproduction, and not reproduction for any purpose, such as derivative works.--Nowa (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This situation did change in 1989. Copyright law changed enormously in the US in 1989. Profit is a red herring here; I think it pretty clear that such works can be copied for profit. The only question is whether they can freely derived from, and I'm unconvinced. The absence of a court case doesn't change the underlying law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. A registered patent attorney says without the official USPTO copyright notice, anyone can copy patent contents “for any purpose”. Why doesn't “any purpose” include creation of derivative works?--Nowa (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it doesn't say it does; "for any purpose" is not the same thing as "in any manner". And the writings of an attorney contrary to printed, general copyright law, in absence of more specific law or a court case isn't just not all that useful. It has some weight, but not a lot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying, but I think we've reached an impasse. Perhaps someone else has something to contribute.--Nowa (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept the Jester quote as factual, it would not be sufficient for our purposes. Jester opines only on copying and dissemination, but is silent on derivative works (modification) – an explicit requirement per COM:L. Remember, also, that the practice of law is as diverse as medicine. A male with cancer seeking a doctor would not be expected to rely on a gynecologist, but rather an oncologist. Similarly, a book on patents and trademarks is not reliable for questions of copyright; they are entirely different intellectual properties. Jester does not provide any rationale or reference to case law to support his contention, which is bizarre in legal scholarship – especially for opinions contrary to statute. Эlcobbola _talk 19:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If someone could find a better reference than Jester, either pro or con, I think that would be great. --Nowa (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the thought occurred to me that the explanation that the USPTO gave when they implemented 37 CFR 1.71 (d) and (e) (i.e. the copyright notice) in 1988 might shed some light on what the word “typically” means in the USPTO statement “the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions” The citation for the rule implementation is 53 FR 47808 Nov. 28, 1988 (i.e. Federal Register volume 53 page 47808) That, unfortunately, is back in the microfilm era. The closest I've come to finding an online copy of volume 53 starts at page 52704 Perhaps someone else can have better luck. I will be traveling for the next few days and be unable to respond.--Nowa (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
I maintain that the weight of the evidence shows that we should not upload March 1989+ patents to Commons. The new information is not sufficient to establish that such items are not copyrighted. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I found it. See May 9, 1988, page 16522 regarding the rationale for section 1.71 (copyright notice) It's about ½ way through. They key statement is that in order to protect the mission of the Patent Office facsimile reproduction of patent images must always be allowed. Now as I understand it, facsimile reproduction is not free reproduction since it doesn't allow derivatives to be made, and Commons will only allow images if derivatives can be made. Correct?--Nowa (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, can anyone think of another example where there is no copyright on facsimile reproduction of an image, but there is a copyright in derivative works? Seems backwards to me.--Nowa (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama is generally somewhat similar, allowing 2-D copying but not modification, and Commons accepts that. --Avenue (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for the FOP link. It seems to me that something similar to the {{FOP}} caution, “Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so....” might be appropriate for {{PD-US-patent}} and other templates related to post 1989 patent images.--Nowa (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

PD-UKGov on photographs by Walter Stoneman and Howard Coster

Several photographs in Category:Walter Stoneman are claimed as {{PD-UKGov}}, is this valid? According to his en.wiki article he was involved in creating a National Photographic Record, but he doesn't seem to have been employed directly by the UK government for this. Also for File:Philip Noel-Baker 1942.jpg by Howard Coster, does the source's statement "Transferred from Central Office of Information, 1974" support the PD-UKGov tag? January (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The National Photographic Record was not a UKGov sponsored project but one undertaken by Stoneman in co-operation with the studio he worked for. The originals of the entire NPR are hosted by the National Portrait Gallery who claim copyright on them all. Currently none of these images are being made available under a non-commercial licence. Graemp (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not all of the images in the category were obtained from the NPG, for example File:British Political Personalities 1936-1945 HU56032.jpg is from the Imperial War Museum and File:Stanley Baldwin ggbain.35233.jpg (which has already survived a DR, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanley Baldwin ggbain.35233.jpg) is from the Library of Congress, although in both cases the NPG have the same image with a copyright notice [8][9]. Are the NPG claiming copyright on the actual work, or their own reproduction of it, or both? January (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

From the perspective of the NPG, the Stoneman collection that they host which appears in Category:Walter Stoneman is being used in breach of their licence. The overwhelming majority of their Stoneman collection were part of the NPR. Currently none of their NPR images are available to use for non-commercial purposes. It has been put to them that this restriction on use is at odds with the original concept of the NPR, in that it was compiled without a commercial intent. They will be reviewing their current licencing arrangements this spring with an eye to relaxing them. The NPR is a very substantial collection and if it is to be made available for non-commerical use, this would be of tremendous public benefit. The existence of any images in Category:Walter Stoneman being used in breach of licence is particularly unhelpful at this present time and wikimedia commons should do all that they can to speedily purge their database of those images that have been incorrectly uploaded, particularly those that use the bogus claim of PD-UKGov. Graemp (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of us don't appreciate being intimidated. Instead of blustering and intimidating, if you believe that the claim of PD-UKGov is incorrect, lay out your evidence here or in a DR. Frankly, the existence of non-commercial licenses don't overwhelm me as valuable; most non-commercial ventures will use them under a "no one will ever care license", since it's hard for a non-commercial venture to reach the level where licensing something like this goes from a "moral should" to a "practical must".--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

en:File:Neo-factsheet.png

Does this file is in {{PD-text}}? --Rezonansowy (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The text is too simple to get a copyright. I am not sure about the picture however. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Its ultimately still a movie screenshot. --AdmrBoltz 17:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

But it doesn't mean anything itself. See File:Microsoft Windows 1.0 page2.jpg (DR) --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that's exactly picture of text. --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The camera angle has me thinking that the photograph is probably copyrightable in most instances. Hard to say for sure; probably depends on the judge and jury. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think copyright doesn't apply to images itself but to theirs content, every copyright case seems to match with it. So angle or colors does not matter itself, but only on image's subject. That's a hard example, but I think it will help us with forming a better policy and understanding the copyright. Let's ask more people familiar with copyright dilemmas. --Rezonansowy (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre and Yann: ? --Rezonansowy (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. By such a loose definition of photograph, then most photographs wouldn't be copyrightable. The subject of the photograph isn't what makes it copyrightable; the creativity shown while performing the photograph is what makes it copyrightable. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Do we have a policy for it? What is the threshold? --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes, we do have a policy. The policy is "we follow copyright law." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Something more? I mean policy for threshold, see File:Razitko UK STN airport.jpg, there's only stamp, however the scan show only stamp and in Licensing section there's no photograph's license, because is probably inapplicable. This image is from COM:TOO. --Rezonansowy (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag is quite clear that it only applies to faithful scans of an original work, not to perspectives. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: IMO this image could be classified as a scan. --Rezonansowy (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it would not qualify as a scan. The perspective of a photograph is one of the copyrightable elements; that one is probably interesting enough to change things. It is not a straightforward reproduction of a sheet of paper. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Rezonansowy, I don't know what you want me to say. I've clearly told you it's copyrightable, and why it's copyrightable. The perspective is not a straight-forward scan. Wishing it was doesn't make it so. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

PD-AR-Photo vs. URAA-restored copyrights?

Some images were released in commons with "PD-AR-Photo" policy. An user, Gunnex, has been requesting for the elimination of these images because he believes it is contrary to other, "URAA-restored copyrights". according to the Treaty of Berne, many of these old images are public. And if these were published in Argentina and became public by Argentine law, another law can not turn back time (irretroactivity of law). Can any bureaucrat or administrator establish which policy comply? ¿Or delete argentine images? you can see an example of an old image to be removed. --GM83 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in some cases the U.S. grants copyright status within the U.S. as if the work had been authored/published in the U.S., regardless of the copyright status in the country of origination. AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply --GM83 (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It does happen that protection expires in one country but still exists in another. So, that would be the question here. For PD-AR-Photo, it sounds like simple photos expire at the later of 25 years from creation and 20 years from publication. If, by those rules, they were still protected in Argentina on January 1, 1996, then their U.S. copyright was restored to a full 95 years from publication (this is the URAA, which is a U.S. law which applies in the U.S. only). It would not matter if they became public domain in Argentina since then. So, Argentine photos from 1971 and later are problematic. For anything before that, there is a good case for PD status, but it would help that there was some indication that photos were published (if kept private and only recently published, those are likely still under copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A flickr screenshot question

Hello again, Commons community. I wish to enquire about a recent picture I found on Flickr's image repository. It's located here, and it's basically a screenshot of a page from a Google web search in French, yet it's licensed under the CC-BY-SA-2.0 Generic license. Is it okay if I upload this picture onto Wikimedia commons? Please advise, and thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The question should be why would you bother? BTW, Pleclown is a contributor here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is OK per Commons:SS#Web_browsers. But I'm not sure about those Google icons. Jee 03:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually not aware of the Commons:Screenshots policy, so asking here proved quite useful. One more element of copyright law to add to my checklist when patrolling new files :-) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

CC-By-SA is the default license of my FlickR stream. I did not upload this screenshot to Commons because I wasn't sure about the Google icons. Furthermore, this screenshot was made to prove a possible trademark infringement by the Adword buyer.

I fail to see the educational value of this screenshot, but if you do, go ahead.

Pleclown (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: Thanks to Saffron Blaze for the notice.

EXIF data - personal information

This is not about copyright, but I think it may fit here.

I've uploaded two pdf files from an online archive, and I now see that the EXIF data includes personal information about the scanner (name and home address), which I naïvely did not foresee. Should I request deletion? I've made a jpg version of one, which does not carry the personal data. Vzeebjtf (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Talking about File:Mitchell_H._Mark_obituary,_Buffalo_Courier.pdf and File:Brougham's Lyceum, The New York Herald.pdf, I don't think it's our responsibility to delete what the scanner added. It's more visible, but it was there all along. Transformations often carry the risk of losing data, so if we do remove it, it should be from the original, not a transformation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

double-checking PD photo

I just want to run this by you guys first, I want to make sure the images shown here (Ebay Item) are indeed in public domain. They were taken during the 2nd Maccabiah (which took place April 2-10, 1935); making their copyright expire in '85 (from the time they were taken); way before the January 1, 1996 URAA restoration date. Is my assessment correct? --CyberXRef^☎ 04:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Status of template {{PD-France}}

The template {{PD-France}} is marked as under construction and contains the warning "THIS TEMPLATE IS CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED, PLEASE DO NOT USE IT YET!" (sorry for the all caps, it's theirs, not mine). It has carried that warning since it was created in June 2010. The template is used in several hundred files, and, as such, I feel the need to bring this here for resolution.

Quite simply: Is PD-France, as it stands, an acceptable license for active use? If so, we should remove the under construction tagging. If not, it needs to be fixed or replaced. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The information in this template is right. The issue is more, should we use it instead of a more general one? The differences not covered in {{PD-old-70}} are about collective and anonymous works, and audiovisual or musical works. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Initially, in 2009, the template page was a sort of mere reminder that such status tag should not be created and that other status templates should be used instead. In 2010, the initiator (Eusebius) of the template in its present form started working on it because no status templates on Commons seemed to cover some rare cases, such as collective works or performer's rights. His idea was to list, on one template, all the possible public domain rationales for all possible types of works, including PD-old works, anonymous works, collective works, neighbouring rights, works that are under the threshold of originality, etc. He did a good work, but he realized that the task was complex and several aspects would be left out of the template anyway. He requested opinions. Objections were raised about the relevance of such a template.

The discussion about this template is at Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 27#.7B.7BPD-France.7D.7D. The idea of such an all-purpose template, which lists all the possible rationales without telling which applies to the file, was going in a direction opposite to the general evolution of the templates on Commons, which had been of clarifying the rationales.

One basic purpose of a status template is to tell clearly to reusers why a particular file is free and allow them to check that information. A good status template is a template that has a high level of specificity about the rationale (it tells exactly and unambiguously the reason why the particular file to which it is affixed is free) and a low level of specificity about the jurisdictions where that rationale applies (i.e. the more countries to which the rationale applies, the better). A status template with a perfect ratio is a free license template (e.g. CC-by-sa 3.0): it is 100% rationale-specific (it tells that the particular file is free because the author released it under this license) and it is 0% country-specific (the release applies to all countries, without exception). Public domain templates can't attain the same ratio as free license templates. Still, examples of good public domain templates with a good ratio (rationale/location) are the PD-old templates, such as PD-old-70. They have a high level of rationale specificity (the p.m.a. rationale is clear) and a low level of country specificity (it applies to many countries). Copyright laws of countries in the European Union have their specificities, but there are also many similarities. For works originating from a country in the European Union, the consensus on Commons seems to favor the use of templates such as PD-old-70, Anonymous-EU, etc., whenever possible.

A template like PD-France, which is a lists of all sorts of possibilities, leaves the reuser guessing. It tells him: the uploader states that this file is in the public domain but he doesn't tell which case applies; here's a list of possibilities, figure it out if you can or guess. Ambiguous all-purpose templates such as "PD" were deprecated and templates with unambiguous rationales are preferred. This template can be of little use to reusers. Also it multiplies the risk of two sorts of mistakes on Commons, because users are lost in the face of just a complex list of possibilities. Some uploaders may not bother to research an actual rationale, place this template and then non-free files pass below the radar. And some public domain files may get mistakenly deleted because users can't figure out what the actual rationale might be.

The list of informations that are currently in the template can have a use but it seems to be aiming more for the type of informations provided by a page like Commons:Copyright rules by territory#France. The informations might be integrated into that page.

In 2012, the initiator of the template has said that he has completely abandoned the idea of creating this template, given the complexity of the task and the objections (see the question there and the reply there).

Around December 2013, I started working on slowly emptying the category associated to this template. Because there's no hurry and it's somewhat boring, I've been fixing only a few files at a time. I probably did less than one hundred. As you saw, there are still some five hundred left to do. Everybody is welcome to help. About half the files with the template were uploaded by one user. They are files about car racing, from the Meurisse and Rol collections in the Gallica website. Those files are relatively easy to fix because that uploader did a good job of always linking to the source page of each file. However, he sometimes confused the two agencies. To fix those files, basically, you must look at the source page on Gallica, look up the name of the agency, add that agency's category, if necessary correct the agency's name in the creator template, remove the templatesPD-France and PD-GallicaScan, add the template Anonymous-EU and add, as the case requires, either the template PD-1923 or the template PD-1996. Here is an example: [10]. It's boring but easy. The other half of the files currently in the category are from various origins and will probably require a particular research in each case to find the factual informations and the copyright status. There might be some exceptional cases for which no template exists other than PD-because. After all the files are treated and the category emptied and the information integrated in other pages, perhaps the template PD-France could be taken back to its initial wording by Dcoetzee or deleted.

-- Asclepias (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But the current PD-old templates do not cover collective works, audiovisual or musical works, and posthumus works (these are also not covered in this template). What should we do about them? Yann (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Films are particularly complex in the European Union. Under EU law, the copyright to films expire 70 years after the death of 4 people. However, there is also a transitional rule which says that this doesn't have the effect that the copyright to preexisting works is shortened. In many countries, the previous rule was 50 or 70 years after the death of the author, and different countries had different opinions on who were the authors of a film. In some countries, the author check requires considering the year of death of more than those four people. For example, in Sweden, the author is anyone who made a contribution which is above the threshold of originality, so the previous law sometimes stipulates a longer term than the new law, and in those cases, the old term takes precedence. Presumably, we should have two separate copyright tags for films from all EU countries: one which states that the new term has expired, and one which states that the old term has expired. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth: In Switzerland (not in the EU), it's only the year of death of the director of a film or other audiovisual work that matters (70 years p.m.a.), per article 30 of the Swiss copyright law: "Bei Filmen und anderen audiovisuellen Werken fällt für die Berechnung der Schutzdauer nur der Regisseur oder die Regisseurin in Betracht." So, maybe an additional tag for public domain films from Switzerland (director died more than 70 years ago) may be needed... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for films we should probably have one tag for each country, and if the tag uses the word "author", then that word should be defined, as different countries define it differently for films. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan4: FYI, your understanding of collective works in France, as you explained on Jim's talk page, is wrong. This is a special case, and they enter into the public domain 70 years after publication. These include dictionaries, etc. (works of several people who are not individually identified). Other cases not covered by the general template are work for hire, and where the copyright owner is an organisation. These too expire 70 years after publication. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Under EU law, those terms are only permitted if those people are anonymous. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

French law is very clear about that. When individual contrbutions are not identified it is a collective work, even if some credit is given to them. See fr:Œuvre collective. For example, we have File:Faure - Encyclopédie anarchiste, tome 1.djvu, published between 1926 and 1934, and the Dictionary of the French Academy, published in 1935, under this rule. Yann (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wordpress

I was wondering, based on Wordpress's terms of service, any image uploaded is freely available to use and upload to Commons. I might be misreading point2 and the rest of it but i'd like an opinion on it? The C of E (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Section 9, Intellectual property:

This Agreement does not transfer from Automattic to you any Automattic or third party intellectual property, and all right, title and interest in and to such property will remain (as between the parties) solely with Automattic. Automattic, WordPress, WordPress.com, the WordPress.com logo, and all other trademarks, service marks, graphics and logos used in connection with WordPress.com, or the Website are trademarks or registered trademarks of Automattic or Automattic’s licensors. Other trademarks, service marks, graphics and logos used in connection with the Website may be the trademarks of other third parties. Your use of the Website grants you no right or license to reproduce or otherwise use any Automattic or third-party trademarks.

I wouldn't trust Wordpress to filter its content though. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well it does say that it's up to the individual contributors to filter and will only intervene if it breaks the tos. I suppose you're right. The C of E (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you quote section 9 when The C of E asked about section 2. Section 9 is all about the copyright of the people who run the Wordpress website, not about stuff their users upload. As for section 2, all it's saying is (a) that users can't upload content without permission from the copyright holders (or malicious or naughty content) and (b) that the people who operate the Wordpress website are allowed to use and modify uploaded content, which they need in order to provide their service. There's absolutely nothing in there that gives any rights whatsoever to anyone else. So no, you can't upload content from Wordpress blogs to Commons unless it's explicitly published under a free license by its legitimate copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was in reference to both the images on Wordpress and their locations on the blog pages. I thought it was a given those who upload the pictures retain the licenses to those pictures, as far as blogs go - I tend to think of Wordpress like Commons, which makes no guarantee of the actual copyright of the images hosted. I think there's a comparable disclaimer here somewhere. The difference between us and Wordpress as far as I see it is that we're a lot more restrictive in what we choose to keep. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

File:WindowsLibrariesForOs2.png

I recently tagged this image for copyright violation because it seemed like a screenshot of Windows software, which under Commons:Screenshots policy is AFAIK a derivative of copyrighted software. The uploader recently asked on my talkpage if I could resolve the copyright issues, but I'm unsure about the copyright status for the "Solitaire" legacy programs myself, whether it's part of Windows or something else entirely. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the uploader. I just wanted to add that most Microsoft Software is a copy of something else, like Paintbrush is an 1:1 copy of MacPaint in form and function … maybe that can help. The screenshot neither shows parts of Windows nor Windows itself, but a idependent software package released 20 years ago, running on the OS/2 operating system of the same age. I did upload it because that software is a dinosaur, which is not easy observe in the wild for most people ;) --Eliza Winterborn (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This version of Solitaire was part of Windows, and the card backs are clearly copyrightable. The distinction here between Windows and Windows utilities running on OS/2 is uninteresting in a copyright fashion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just let me clarify what "Windows 3.0 Applets for OS/2" is: From products that were originally developed for Windows 3.0, Microsoft took the source code, adapted it for OS/2, then re-compiled and re-released as a seperate non-Windows freeware product for OS/2. These very programs shown on the screenshot are not the same as included in Windows; they just look the same (until you click "About", where you can read that it's not Windows). I don't know if that matters, though ;) --Eliza Winterborn (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't, as long as no version of the software was ever released under a free license. Freeware ≠ free software. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI Eliza, I have a copy backed up just in case you want it reuploaded as fair use on English and German Wikipedias. I haven't done it yet in case you want to claim the upload as your contribution to the Wikipedias. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Wall of Remembrance...

I'm in the process of reviewing an article over on the English wiki which uses the (rather nice) photograph, File:UN Memorial Cemetery.JPG. The photograph itself is correctly tagged by the photographer, but I'm not sure about the underlying copyright for the memorial itself, which was apparently constructed in 2006. It is in South Korea, which doesn't have Freedom of Panorama for commercial use purposes, and it would seem to also potentially breach the US rules on FoP, due to its date. Can anyone see a way of enabling it to be used? I wasn't sure if it might be argued that it was sufficiently simple in design so as not to need copyright release? Apart from that I was a bit stuck. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

en:File:Context Menu on OS X 10.9.png

Is this file is {{PD-ineligible}} (PD-text + PD-shape)? --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem of a book of a dead press

Hi. I'd like to paste up a book, Ecodefense, on English Wikisource, as well as my translation (CC-BY-SA and GFDL) on other Wikisource. The text and illustration source of the book is here.

The copyright holder of the last edition of Ecodefense is Abbzug Press. Abbzug Press no longer exists after its publication without any heritors, the 70-year restriction is not available because it is not a natural person. And thus Ecodefense is a Creative Commons book. Is my corollary right? Is that OK to upload all of the texts and illustration which were sold to Abbzug Press? Or, what kind of further documents should I offer? — Forgetmyself (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How have you determined that Abbzug Press is the copyright holder? The U.S. Copyright Office has record of Dave Foreman registering this work on 1990-01-29 (TX0002779530) for the text in the edition published on 1985-05-01 and on 1990-02-06 (TX0002763808) for the new matter (revisions and additions) in the 2nd edition. They have no record of a transfer of ownership for either of these copyrights (but this doesn't necessarily mean that such a transfer did not occur). For works published after 1978 as a “joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter (unless the author’s identity is later revealed in Copyright Office records, in which case the term becomes the author’s life plus 70 years). All evidence indicates that this work will be copyrighted for decades to come. Note that even if Abbzug Press did receive a grant of a transfer or license of copyright to Ecodefense and this copyright was somehow overlooked and not included in the distribution of its assets to its creditors when Abbzug Press was dissolved, this doesn't expunge or otherwise change the duration of the copyright term. For example, the author's termination rights might still exist (a mechanism which allows an author or his heirs to terminate the original grant of copyright). —RP88 01:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have the third edition, third printing, and Abbzug Press is the copyright holder since 1993. You mean that even when Abbzug Press was dissolved, I should still get in touch with Dave Foreman? —Forgetmyself (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to be clearer. How do you know that Abbzug Press is the copyright holder since 1993? Is there a copyright statement to that effect in the third edition of Ecodefense? I checked an online scan of the third edition (of dubious provenance), but I didn't see any copyright statement in it by Abbzug Press. I also couldn't find any claim online that Abbzug Press ever held copyright to Ecodefense. Keep in mind that who publishes a work can be different from who holds the copyright to a work. It's my understanding that Ecodefense consists of contributions of a number of named and anonymous authors, all who may hold copyright to their contributions to this work, in addition to Dave Foreman's copyright to his own contributions and his compilation copyright. As far as I can determine only David Foreman registered a copyright with respect to this book. You might be able to reach David Foreman via the Rewilding Institute, of which he is the Executive Director. —RP88 10:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I found another scan of the third edition, and it does have a copyright claim by Abbzug Press and David Foreman. This suggests that David Foreman might have transferred his copyright to Abbzug Press (or maybe Abbzug Press is just claiming copyright over their own contributions in the 3rd edition (such as the introduction that they added). If that is indeed what happened, you'll need to track down what happened to the copyright after the dissolution of Abbzug Press. Depending on the terms of the transfer to Abbzug Press, some or all of the rights might have reverted to David Foreman, they might have been sold to cover Abbzug Press' debts, distributed as part of its assets to Abbzug's owners, or, if unclaimed, might even now be owned by the state of California. If I were you, I'd start by trying to contact David Foreman as well any officer of Abbzug Press I could locate and see if anyone of them can provide you with details about the current owner of the copyright to Ecodefense. —RP88 10:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks a lot! —Forgetmyself (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgetmyself -- If you can't get in touch with the authors, then the book would appear to fall into the Orphan works zone, not the CC-BY zone (CC licenses didn't even exist then). AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Could the previous representative of Abbzug Press substitute the authors and avoid falling into the orphan works zone? —Forgetmyself (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

copyright advice- guide for heirloom stuff

Do we have a guide specific for people who have access to family collections? I know some of the detail behind it, but it would be good to have something I could point people at. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Copy right advice - why we don't allow people to delete their own contributions

Do we have a page that diplomatically explains why we don't allow people to delete a media file they have released? Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Commons has very scant information on how it deals with this subject matter, but I've found a bit of useful info from Commons:Courtesy deletions. Generally speaking, the older the file is from the time of upload, the less likely it will be deleted. (BTW, I didn't realize you worked for WMUK.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikiversidad portada.jpg

This is the screenshot of the Spanish Wikiversity landing page, but does the Wikiversity logo count for de minimis? I'm thinking about combining {{MediaWiki screenshot}} and {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} but those seem like two possibly mutually contradictory templates that should not be used together. What's the guideline for this image? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Use {{Wikimedia project screenshot}}. —RP88 10:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. On further looking into that page, I've also found {{Wikiversity-screenshot}}; however that license template seems to be updated since it still displays that the Wikiversity logo has not been copyrighted yet. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, {{Wikiversity-screenshot}} seems way out of date (it also doesn't mention that the text is dual licensed). I'd probably use {{Wikimedia project screenshot|project=Wikiversity}}. —RP88 11:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you also please help me sort out some Wikiversity images? I want to get a bit of feedback for them, if you've got the time for it.

File:Wikiversitetet-logo.png was uploaded presumably to be the logo for Svenska Wikiversity, but a quick look at their Wiki.png logo shows they've been using File:Wikiversity-logo-en.png which is English Wikiversity's logo instead. For the former, do we normally delete such images as unused, since the wiki it was meant for uses a different logo? The license for the image is also probably wrong.

File:Wikiversitate-logo.png, File:Wikiversitate Logo.png and File:Wikiversitatea-logo.png were all created by the same uploader, but the copyright tagging is incorrect. Naming conventions actually recommend moving the names to "Wikiversity-logo-xx.ext" where 'xx' is the language code and ext is the extension for the filename. I'm thinking about nominating two and keeping the third, but I don't know if the second or the third image has the better graphics for Commons. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

With regards File:Wikiversitetet-logo.png, it's unclear to me why you think the license for the image is wrong. With regards to deletion, it's a question of COM:SCOPE. I'm definitely not as familiar with the scope policy as I am with copyright (and this page is probably the wrong place to ask), but If they're not the official images used by the relevant projects, and they also aren't used anywhere else, I think it's fine to open a DR for them. However, unless they're misleading in some way, I personally wouldn't bother. —RP88 11:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Malacañang Palace

This palace was originally built in the 18th century, but it seems that it has changed a couple of times.

• 
  1910
• 
  1940

Since the palace has changed and since there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines, maybe we have to delete recent pictures of it? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe... the change from the 1910 to the 1940 appearance is quite substantial; on the other hand, it's now still very similar to the 1940 look, so an important question may be - are the changes from 1940 to today's appearance of sufficient originality to create a new copyright? If not, is the "1940" design (probably older, at some point between 1910 and 1940...) still copyrighted? If not, then maybe we could keep all the pictures. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea who it was that changed the building between 1910 and 1940. Whether photographs are permitted of a modified building presumably also depends on which portion of the house you take a photo of. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is that if the author did not announce himself, i.e. he is unknown, the copyright either does not apply or does apply for a specific number of years since creation of the work. However, I don't know which rule is in effect in the Philippines. - JohnnyWiki (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of any place where anonymous works don't get copyright, and that would not be acceptable under the Berne Convention. I also see no reason to think that the author of the changes is anonymous; it could easily be well-known, if we just know where to look.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Here the copyright does not apply in case of anonimity: {{PD-Poland}}. Here the copyright applies for a specific number of years since creation of the work: {{Anonymous-EU}}. - JohnnyWiki (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I had now a look at Commons:Copyright rules by territory#The Philippines. So, the Philippines have 50 years after publication for anonymous works. This would make the appearance of the palace of 1940 or earlier PD if the designer/architect were really anonymous. However, as it is a famous building, I think that the person(s) involved in the design are most likely known (just not named here at the present time). As the Philippines also have only a 50 years p.m.a. term of protection, there certainly is a good chance that even a known creator of a design from between 1910 and 1940 has died more than 50 years ago. But I don't know anything specific and the question of whether a later redesign might be of copyrightable originality remains open anyway... Gestumblindi (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You can use {{tl|...}} to link to a template. {{PD-Poland}} says nothing about a copyright not applying in the case of anonymity that I can see. Yes, there's a flat number of years in several countries for anonymous authors, but they have to be anonymous, not just not known to us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment It seems that User:Fastily deleted some photos of this building citing Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Palace of the Soviets (including one of the images used in this discussion), although that deletion request was about a completely different building in a completely different country. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sand sculptures

• 
• 

What's our policy on photographs of sand sculptures? There wasn't anything specific in "Commons:Image casebook". The photographs above appear to be of sculptures professionally created out of sand for an exhibition. By their nature, the sculptures would not have been permanently displayed, which means that freedom of panorama in Singapore would not apply. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It is permanent for the life of the sculpture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Saffron Blaze, if it is intended that a work be left in a public space for its natural lifetime, it is Commons policy that it is considered to have been installed at a public place permanently. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary. —RP88 00:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe there should be a link to that page from the image casebook? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's discussed at FOP#Permanent_vs_temporary. --ghouston (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Musée de l'Air, Le Bourget

I have a small collection of photos (~20) showing exhibits from the Musée de l'Air in Le Bourget. I would like to upload them, but I have trouble finding out whether or not I was allowed to take them and if commercial use is legal. Since Category:Musée de l'Air is full of similar photos, I was wondering if someone has more information regarding this or is able to find information regarding this on their website - I wasn't able to find anything but that might be a result of my limited understanding of the French language. I didn't check for any signs at the entrance either because I entered the museum from the airport as it's open to all visitors of the Paris Air Show. Would be thankful for some advice. Thanks, — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Julian H.: Hello,

Pictures of planes, rockets, balloons, etc. are OK. Original architecture has a copyright, and there is no FOP in France, so be careful about pictures of buildings. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Akkar Group Logo.jpeg

Hello, I just want to know if {{Trademarked}} and {{PD-textlogo}} are applicable to this company logo: File:Akkar Group Logo.jpeg

The image source is the twitter public profile of the company in the following link Twitter Link

The user The Haz suggested me to ask here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dealdany (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 February 2014‎ (UTC)

First, I meant that {{Trademark}} definitely applies to this image. Also, you didn't mention Twitter earlier. However, just because something is on Twitter or Facebook doesn't mean the original creator or company gave up his/her copyright. That's not part of the terms on those websites. My original comments were related to 1. that you didn't list any license (hence the 'No Permission' tag), and 2. that when you changed the license, you wrote that the company released it into the public domain but everything you pointed to stated otherwise. Not that it's not PD, just that the company didn't explicitly do so.) I hadn't looked closely at that logo before, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't meet the threshold of originality in the United States, and therefore would be the {{PD-textlogo}} I had suggested earlier. A single part of a letter got slightly changed. There are plenty of examples where something almost exactly like it did not receive copyright protection. Sorry for any confusion. I hope that clears it up. The Haz _talk 00:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Everything is clear now. I'm new in the community and I'm getting used how things work. Thank for your help and time. --Dealdany (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

is this picture of Conington in the public domain?

Hi. I can only find one picture of John Conington, the one that appears in this book (scroll down a bit, page 442). That book was published in 1997, so of course it is still under copyright, but what about the picture itself? I believe its copyright already expired long ago, since it was taken around 1856, so I wonder – would one be allowed to upload it to Commons? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This is a repost, this section was archived before anyone replied. Sorry for insisting. (I would still like to know if I can upload this old picture of Conington to Commons.) Thanks again ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey no problem, I find some of my posts may get regularly archived before I see a response arise, or it moves to the top of the page and I don't see the reply. But anyway, could you please post a direct link to what "the picture" you are talking about refers to? In the link you provided, I currently see four black-white portraits of people, designating Macmullen, Hampden, Wynter and Sewell. I'm not sure, but I think if you were to take the pictures and frame them in the context of the larger work, the book, that they're part of, I would think the rule of copyright would apply. There are probably freer equivalents out there, such as in libraries and retouched image archives, that we may be able to pull the images from if we want to stay away from copyright. Anyway, those are my opinions, and another Commons lawyer should be around to provide a second opinion. :-) Cheers, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not looking carefully, I've stricken per below. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at page xxii, the photo of John Conington (plate 44) is sourced solely as "John Conington. Undated Photograph (possibly c. 1856)". It's entirely possible that this photo remained unpublished until it appeared in "The History of the University of Oxford, Volume VI: Nineteenth Century Oxford, Part 1", edited by M. G. Brock and M. C. Curthoys, 1997. I'd try contacting the authors to see if they can tell you any more about the source of the photo, it's publication history, or the identity of the photographer. I'm pretty sure "M. C. Curthoys" is Dr. Mark Curthoys of Oxford. You can find contact information for him on his faculty page. —RP88 02:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought... I'll try contacting the authors and see if I can find more information about this picture. Thanks both. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

How the original creator of an image has to be attributed?

Hello,

Could anybody, please, help me to solve this little problem? Lets say I want to use a couple of pictures on my website. These pictures should also work as links to other pages of my website and it´s not very nice to write a credit line for example under every picture. If the way of attributing of the creator isn´t specified in a license, what are my options?

For example, is it possible, just to mention, that these images were created by other authors, and just to put a link somewhere at the bottom of a group of these pictures? Obviously, this link would lead you to a page, where would further informations were specified, which picture is made by whom etc. All in one place, aside from other content of the website. I just don´t want these informations credit lines to have a disturbing effect on a page. How would you solve this?

Note: My apologies for my english. I´m not a native speaker.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JackF (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello,

When "the way of attributing of the creator isn't specified in a license", many usual licenses seem to allow something like what you say, on the conditions that the placement of the credits complies with generally admitted and reasonable good practices. For example, see clause 4c of the CC-by-sa 3.0 license. For the Creative Commons licenses, you may find the Creative Commons FAQ useful. Of course, one must look what are the terms of the license associated with each picture and must write all the elements required by the license. IMO, I would say that the website should make the credits easy to find, not try to hide them, and the website should treat all the works with equal fairness, without discrimination, it should not give more or less visibility to the credits of the works of some people than to the credits of some other people, including your own works. But remember that we do not give legal advice, it is your responsibility to read the licenses and to comply with their terms as you reasonably understand them. For legal advice, you should consult a professional in your jurisdiction. Also, as you say that you want to use "a couple of pictures", if the number is very small, you could try to contact directly the authors and check that it's all fine. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Author of a video

Hello,

I have a copyright/author issue. I started the recording of a video on a GoPro and then set it up on a friend's head (in that order). Said friend then went skiing, and stopped the camera at the bottom of the hill.

Who's the copyright holder ? Who's the author of the video ?

Can I edit it, and upload it as own work ? I'm the one starting the camera, but I'm not the one holding it, even though I'm the one setting it up... I'm in a real fog here. Any thoughts ?

Pleclown (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway you can get his sign-off on this? A lawyer may be able to sit down and make a case here, but the legal bright-line and the moral one too is to have a clear contract with everyone you work with who can claim creative input.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As he is a fellow Wikimedian (pmauduit), I think this wouldn't be a problem in this case. But the problem could arise with people not so easily reachable. Pleclown (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem with ticket link

The file at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blausen_0389_EyeAnatomy_02.png has this ticket link: Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2013061010006654. When I click it, it asks me to log in to OTRS. When I do, I get the "Login failed! Your username or password was entered incorrectly." error message. My username and password work ok logging into Wikimedia Commons.

What I'm trying to do is understand conditions for use of this image outside wiki.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhidley (talk • contribs) 2014-02-23 (UTC)

Hi. To answer your questions:

• As far as license terms, there is no difference between using it on-wiki or off-wiki: All (properly licensed) files on Wikimedia Commons allow you to use them off-wiki in at least the same way as on-wiki. See Commons:REUSE. In the case of this file, it's {{Cc-by-3.0}}, one of the most popular licenses on Commons. You can see its basic summary at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ and the full legal version at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode. You do not need permission from Wikimedia Commons to start using a freely-licensed file: Your permission is already built into the license, and you can use and copy it (as long as you follow the license) right away without notifying the copyright holder or anyone else.
• I don't think regular Wikipedia/Wikimedia user logins work on OTRS; it's reserved for members of that volunteer team, because e-mail to OTRS sometimes contains confidential information.
• If you have a special reason to ask for confirmation that the OTRS ticket really did release the file under CC-BY-3.0, you can post a question at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. --Closeapple (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright term in the UK 1988 law

Hello,

When did the UK extend the copyright from 50 to 70 years pma? This could affect the copyright status of files affected by URAA. According to Wikipedia, in the 1911 Act the term of author's copyright was extended to the lifetime of the author and 50 years thereafter; this remained the case under the 1956 Act and the 1988 Act. But according to [11], Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies. So? Yann (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The UK copyright term for many existing works was extended from pma+50 to pma+70 on 1 January 1996 (see en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom#Extension_of_copyright_term and [12]). Unforunately, it was partially retroactive, reviving the copyright on some works that had already fallen into the public domain in the UK. —RP88 16:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep. The link to the actual law on wipolex is here. Since it went into effect on that day, those new terms apply when checking URAA status. And it wasn't just partially retroactive, it was entirely retroactive, so a great many works which had been PD the day before got restored, and also had their U.S. rights restored. That was particularly true for photographs, which had been 50 years from creation for pre-1957 photos, and they were fully retroactively restored to 70pma that day. This was common throughout the EU in that time as countries implemented the European copyright directives; there were a great many retroactive restorations. The U.S. just happened to do the same thing about the same time with the URAA, for somewhat similar reasons (they had to conform to the Berne Convention's 50pma requirement), and the timing of the two extensions happened to coincide (possibly not coincidental, as the UK government may have made sure to make that happen) to the benefit of UK copyright owners. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, French law is different. Works in the public domain were not restored. Only works still under a copyright had their term extended. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is true, It's my understanding that France's implementation of the EU Copyright Duration Directive, in which France extended their copyright term from pma+50 to pma+70, was retroactive in a manner similar to the UK. See Zombie and Once-Dead Works: Copyright Retroactivity After the E.C. Term Directive and Article 16 of Loi no 97-283 du 27 mars 1997 portant transposition dans le code de la propriété intellectuelle des directives du Conseil des Communautés européennes nos 93/83 du 27 septembre 1993 et 93/98 du 29 octobre 1993. —RP88 12:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

France's law (which took effect in 1997) was just as retroactive. It is here. See Article 16(III) (in Title III) of that law. Restorations were mandated by the EU for any work still protected anywhere in the EEA, which is pretty much anything less than 70pma at that point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the wording of this: it seems to say one thing, and then the opposite. All works that were still in copyright on 31 December 1995 [...] has their copyright extented. To me, it would mean that those works which were not in copyright on 31 December 1995 were not extended. Yann (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's easiest to think of the act as affecting two classes of works. First, some works had their copyright extended from pma+50 to pma+70, i.e. works still in copyright in the UK on 31 December 1995. Second, some works had their copyright revived to pma+70, i.e. works whose copyright in the UK had expired but were still copyright protected on 1 July 1995 in any other country in the European Economic Area. —RP88 12:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

All works that were still in copyright on 31 December 1995 had their copyright "extended". When it comes to to existing works in which copyright expired before 31st December 1995 but which were on 1st July 1995 protected in another EEA state under legislation relating to copyright or related rights, their copyright was "revived", but the effect is the same. See sections 16 and 17 of the 19 December 1995 law which I linked to above. In general, since some EEA states had a 70pma (and at times 80pma) terms, and at least some of those did not use the rule of the shorter term, most any work would have been under copyright somewhere in the EEA under 70pma terms. If we can show that a work had expired in every EEA country on that date, then we could say the UK copyright was not revived, but that seems unlikely to prove. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

category:The Phantom

I think covers are in copyviol--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

License and copyright for Indian government documents

Hello,

On this page by the Press Information Bureau of the Government of India, we can read "The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context." I understand that it does not forbide creating derivatives, but that the documents should not be misleading to the readers. I think we have already this kind of restriction of content here. Am I right? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported: "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation".[13] Thincat (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't forbid adaptation; but forbid any abuse (a non copyright restriction). I think it is "free enough" per freedomdefined:Definition. Little chance that GoI sites use a CC license; so I think we can satisfy with it. Pinging Sreejithk2000 for opinion. Jee 09:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jkadavoor that the clause you specifically call out is not a concern — it's a statement of moral rights, a non-copyright restriction, that Commons considers acceptable (see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#Authors.27_moral_rights). However, I don't think the license is a "free license" for Commons purposes, as Commons requires an explicit statement from the copyright holder that making and distributing modifications is permitted (not just the absence of a restriction on making changes). —RP88 10:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You may probably right. I remember Sreejithk2000 commented earlier that there is an ongoing efforts from WM India to change the mind of GOI. BTW, I see a site with CC BY-NC-ND license and another one with a CC BY SA license. Jee 10:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't interpret it that way. When it says that it should be "reproduced accurately", it means no en:Derivative work of any sort is allowed, even if the work is non-derogatory. And we at Commons have the rule that "Publication of derivative work must be allowed." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Some websites do have Commons-usable licensing. We also have a Template:NROER for the NROER link which Jkadavoor provides. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The copyright text they have given sounds like {{Cc-by}} but Commons does not assume things. We need an explicit statement of license and we dont see one in pib.nic.in. Unfortunately, we need an {{OTRS}} ticket if we use images from the website. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Reproduced accurately" is generally a moral rights clause -- a reproduction should not be modified to misrepresent what the original work was. The rest of that clause also gives a hint they are referring more to moral rights. However yes, we generally want a specific statement or awareness that commercial use is allowed, as is derivative works. The "reproduced accurately" moral rights requirement would also apply to derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• So can we currently host the images from this and other similar sites? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• WM India should ask a confirmation. I sent a mail requesting this. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment from WMIN. While we haven't got any response from the GoI on this issue, just stating that we're making in roads into getting GoI works into a CC licence. So far, we've only succeeded with the NROER back in November 2013. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah! And that happened after a lot of followup. You think they will respond anytime sooner now? They are all busy giving Bharat Nirman ke Praman. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous US map created in 1782 but not published until 20th century

So here is a question I cannot resolve on my own. The object in question is a dated 1782 manuscript map (made around the American Revolutionary War in the United States) by an anonymous cartographer, that was not rediscovered until 1909, and possibly not actually published until after 1923. (for details, see: http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Autumn07/map.cfm; a no-issue photoscan is available from the LoC and is what is proposed to be uploaded (see http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/owi2001045906/PP/)) Is it potentially still covered by US Copyright law (because of date of publication), or is it usable, and if so, under what tag? Morgan Riley (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There's some complex interplay between common law and civil law here. I understand that there's some vague rules about common law copyright only applying to things where someone has held copyright on, and nobody was with this. From a strict civil law viewpoint, one could argue this has never been legally published before 2002, since no one knew who the copyright holder was to get permission from them. I'd just tag the thing PD-1923.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Try the rather useful chart here (including the footnotes). This appears to have been an unpublished anonymous work, given that we don't know the author and there seems to be a lack of evidence of it being published prior to 1984. It is now in the public domain, as far as I can tell, being 120 years from its date of creation. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That 120 years from creation only matters for works first published after 2002. If it were first published with permission of copyright holder in 1984, then it would be in copyright until 2048 according to that chart.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a correct reading of the guidance. Have a look at footnote 2, "Unpublished works registered for copyright since 1978 can be considered as if they were an "Unpublished, Unregistered Work."" The rules for those are 120 years from creation. That makes sense, if you consider that it had already entered the public domain by 1984, and therefore there is no longer any copyright over the image in the US. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually no. Works created previously but unpublished until 1978 were given at least 25 years protection from that time, and if they were published (or registered for copyright) in that 25-year span, they were given another 25 years of protection (since extended to 45); protection is the longer of that period and the 120 years from creation. Thus, works created before 1978 but never published, but then published between 1978 and 2002, will not expire before 2048 regardless of when they were created. However all of the "published" determinations depends on the copyright owner (since something can only be legally first published by the copyright owner), who may be impossible to identify. "Rediscovered" does not necessarily mean "unpublished". It had to change hands from the original author at some point a long time ago, so it may well have been published then according to the norms of the times. Any actions since probably were not done under the authority of a copyright owner, so if it did remain unpublished then it's probably unpublished now, and (being after 2003) the 120 year from creation term would apply. But PD-1923 is just as likely. Prosfilaes' first response seems about right to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Uploaded here File:Williamsburg, Virginia, 1782.jpg and File:Williamsburg, Virginia, 1782.tif. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Montage licence

Can someone help me work out the appropriate licence for File:Stoke-on-Trent montage.jpg - the licence of the constituent images are CC-0, CC-BY-SA-2.5, CC-BY-2.0, CC-BY-SA-2.0 and CC-BY-SA-3.0. I think CC-BY-SA-3.0 is ok as per Commons:Collages#Combining different Creative Commons versions but would appreciate confirmation (or otherwise). Nthep (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, those licenses are all compatible with cc-by-sa-3.0. Make sure you provide proper attribution for all of the original images, as specified on the source pages. I think File:Montage Columbus 1.jpg is a good example of how to do this. —RP88 14:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA-3.0 should be fine in the worst case. Montages like this straddle the difference between a "derivative work" and a "collective work", which is a compilation of multiple other unmodified works into assembled into a collection (think of a periodical, which is a collection of individual articles, or an edition of selected works by an author, or even a Wikipedia article, a combination of the text and the individual images). In the latter case, the individual works retain their own copyright, and the selection and arrangement of the collective work has its own separate copyright. If it is considered a collective work, then the licenses of the components can be anything at all (provided there is a right to copy in the first place to put it into the collective work), and the compilation must also be licensed. If it is a derivative work, then the share-alike provisions of the licenses of the other works take effect, and the resulting work must also be share-alike. There was a case where a montage was ruled a derivative work instead of a collective work, but that one was where photographs were rotated and overlapped, looking more like a pile of photographs -- the court decided the resulting work was more of a unified whole rather than compilation, thus it was a derivative work. Something like this is less clear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright holders' wishes about high resolution files

I am mentioning this here in case the relevant discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#We desperately need a quick conclusion on this matter (permanent link) scrolls away. There seems to be potential agreement that, whatever the legality of hosting high resolution files when the photographer has only uploaded a lower resolution file, Commons should not host such high resolution files. This would be a policy, not necessarily a legal requirement. I have suggested a change to Project scope at Commons talk:Project scope#Copyright holders' wishes about high resolution files. Thincat (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Marc Abaya.jpg

Hello! Here's the question: the watermark states All Rights Reserved while the image itself was published on Flickr under CC-BY-2.0. How can we manage this situation? Is it a copyright violation or not? Thanks in advance, — TintoMeches, 00:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We generally trust Flickr to be reliable a resource for uploading free media, but sometimes Commons:Flickrwashing, which is taking an image from another source and "washing" the license when uploading to Flickr, can and does happen to an extent. I would recommend checking the watermarked URL at http://www.octopusgarden.org/ just to make sure, as presumably that would be most likely the true copyright holder of the original work. You can obtain permissions for the image, just to make sure, by contacting the website owner and/or copyright holder via email located here and following the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Also make sure to include the template at the bottom of the page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the name of the Flickr account is the same as that of the person owning the octopusgarden website. So you can ask them to clarify what they mean by "all rights reserved" - it can also still mean the copyrights held in CC-BY-SA, which includes attribution as a fundamental copyright rule. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jan Chelminski

Could you please advise on the suitability of File:Jan van Chelminski Napoleon Leading his Army.jpg for Commons? There are already many paintings by Jan Chełmiński, so I uploaded this one, but he died in 1925 and I am not sure on reflection that this is appropriate for Commons. Thanks! - PKM (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell where it was first published, but I think it safe to say it was some place life+70. If we could find a date of publication, that would be awesome, but given that he died before the URAA cut-off date for life+70 nations, I'm not worried about it at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)