Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/10

Is this CC-NC custom license acceptable?

Fahrradmonteur.de (talk · contribs) tagged at least some of his uploads with either or both of User:Fahrradmonteur.de/Autor2 and User:Fahrradmonteur.de/Lizenz:

User:Fahrradmonteur.de/Autor2

Dieses Foto ist von Ralf Roletschek Achtung: Dieses Bild ist nicht gemeinfrei. Es ist zwar frei benutzbar aber gesetzlich geschützt. This photo was created by Ralf Roletschek Note: this image is not in the Public Domain. It is free to use but protected by law. Bitte benutzen sie nach Möglichkeit als Bildbeschreibung: Ralf Roletschek / Fahrradmonteur.de in unmittelbarer Nähe beim Bild oder an einer Stelle in ihrer Publikation, wo dies üblich ist. Dabei muß der Zusammenhang zwischen Bild und Urhebernennung gewahrt bleiben. Ein Link zu meiner Homepage ist erwünscht aber nicht Bedingung. I prefer the following credit: Ralf Roletschek / Fahrradmonteur.de near to the photo or at a location that is common in your publication but preserving the association between image and credit. A link to my website is much appreciated but not mandatory. Bitte lesen sie den vollen Lizenztext gründlich, bevor sie das Bild nutzen! Wenn sie Fragen zu den Lizenzvereinbarungen haben oder weniger restriktive kommerzielle Lizenzen wünschen, kontaktieren sie mich per Mail: ralf@roletschek.de Please review the full license requirements carefully before using this image. If you would like to clarify the terms of the license or negotiate less restrictive commercial licensing outside of the bounds of Licenses, please contact me by email: ralf@roletschek.de

User:Fahrradmonteur.de/Lizenz
Ich widerspreche jeder wie auch immer gearteten nachträglichen Lizenzänderung. Es gilt die jeweils gültige Version der Lizenz zum Zeitpunkt des Hochladens. Eine nachträgliche Umwandlung in andere Lizenzversionen oder in andere Lizenzen ist nicht statthaft. Dieses Foto liegt nicht unter der Lizenz CC-BY-SA vor!

Is this license acceptable in Wikimedia Commons? -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is, there are even similar non-custom variants available here. What may be a policy violation is not disclosing that User:Fahrradmonteur.de is an alternate account of User:Ralf Roletschek …    FDMS  4    00:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

See Commons:Multi-licensing: "Multi-licensing means releasing content under multiple licenses. Doing so gives more freedom to users of the content, as they can choose which of the licenses best suits their needs." People may be doubtful on how adding a NC license will give more freedom; but it is true for adaptations. Copyleft licenses like CC BY-SA, GFDL and FAL force the reuser to deliver the adapted work under the same/similar license. So we can't mix two copyleft licensed works (CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC-SA, CC BY-SA and GFDL, etc). So a work multi licensed with CC BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA is technically more free for adaptations as it can mix with both CC BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA licensed works.

Adding a CC BY-NC-ND (as Ralf) did here is not making any further freedom. But is is useful for some reusers who accepts any but only CC licensed works (otherwise they can't use his works).

I see nothing wrong in his new alternate account as his website is already published in many pages, file pages and in many other discussions. (yes; his custom tag was discussed many times, earlier.) There was a discussion about using company/website names as usernames by LX; but I think it is still in a premature stage. Jee 03:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

CC licenses are easier to use then GFDL, as you don't have to reproduce the whole license, like you have to with GFDL.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, evrybody, for your explanations! -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

1924 painting by an artist named Richard Hall

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/15201119150/ (My photo of the work on my Flickr account). I'm not sure of the copyright status of this. I can't readily find anything on Hall. There is a well-known present-day artist of the same name, but the date of this work is before that artist was born. Does anyone here know what the copyright status of this piece would be? - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it may be fi:Richard Hall, a British painter born in Finland (1860-1942/43). Ref #2 in this article has an active link to a short bio. GermanJoe (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Extremely likely. So this would be PD in countries with a 70-year period after death; I'm guessing it would be PD in the U.S. on the basis of non-renewal, but how would I demonstrate that? - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

For the US, do you have any information about possible publication date and location(s)? With this information atleast a rudimentary check for entries is possible in [[1]]. GermanJoe (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It says that he was a British painter who was born in Finland, died in Argentina and between that lived in the United States, Sweden and France, so what is the source country? Where was it first published? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a painting of a prominent American art collector and patron, for what it's worth. I believe she lived in San Francisco, and at the time she owned the chair she is sitting in in the portrait (designed and formerly used by Queen Marie of Romania) but I don't really know the answer to where it was painted or first displayed; it was in the inaugural collection of the Maryhill Museum of Art. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'd appreciate if anyone can weigh in who can determine whether this is OK: en-wiki could definitely use the image in the article Alma de Bretteville Spreckels if it's allowed. - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: , I tried that, found nothing, but I'm not sure I fully understand how to prove a negative in this case. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If it was shown 1924 (or 1926? not sure about the first collection) in the museum for public viewing, you should check 1924-1926 in the copyright records. That should be sufficient to ascertain "template:PD-US-no notice" usage. Make sure to add as many details as possible about the available facts and your research to the image information. You can't "proof" the negative 100% , but you should be reasonably sure about your research. GermanJoe (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I can tell it was never registered, but if someone who knows their way around this thinks I blew it, please either let me know, or nominate for deletion. As it is, I've uploaded it at File:Maryhill Museum - Richard Hall - Alma de Bretteville Spreckels in Queen Marie of Roumania's audience chair (1924) 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama — Russia is in effect

I do remind that effective 2014-10-01 (October 1, 2014) the new amendments to the article 1276 of the Civil Code of Russia are in effect. So the freedom of panorama (FoP) is in effect in Russia for „works of architecture, of urban development, and of garden and landscape art“. This way {{FoP-Russia}} is unfrozen and allowed for practical use.

The copyright of actual photographers I assume should be specified separately by one of Commons' free licenses.
--NeoLexx (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

After midnight UTC we start undeletions (I hope by the time I wake up there is still smth left). Note that sculpture is not covered by FoP even if it is installed permanently.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Landscape art?    FDMS  4    22:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is covered by the new law.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@FDMS4: I think that they rather mean s.th. like that. --A.Savin 09:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• The literal wording of the amendment to the article №1276 of the Civil Code of Russia, part 2. (quoted by the .doc file from the Duma (Russian parliament) site:

Допускается свободное использование путем воспроизведения и распространения изготовленных экземпляров, сообщения в эфир или по кабелю, доведения до всеобщего сведения в форме изображений произведений архитектуры, градостроительства и произведений садово-паркового искусства, расположенных в месте, открытом для свободного посещения, или видных из этого места

What would be the most proper translation of "произведений садово-паркового искусства" in English can be further narrowed if mixable with a form of painting. Word-by-word translation is "of creative works of the gardens-parks art". I think the example from A.Savin fells the best into it. --NeoLexx (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Would such works be copyrightable in European legislations (without full FOP) or the USA?    FDMS  4    10:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean, maybe the originality threshold? if yes, I suppose the above example passes it, but ianal. --A.Savin 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In the U.S. "artistic gardens" are not eligible for copyright protection as artistic works for the reason that they are neither “authored” nor “fixed” in the senses required by U.S. copyright. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Chapman Kelley's artistic garden Wildflower Works (a conceptual artwork of some renown) was ineligible for copyright: "Simply put, gardens are planted and cultivated, not authored. A garden’s constituent elements are alive and inherently changeable, not fixed. ... All this is true of Wildflower Works, even though it was designed and planted by an artist." (Kelley v. Chicago Park District, 7th Cir. Feb. 15, 2011). Similarly, "landscape designs" are not eligible for copyright protection as architectural works in the U.S. It is the practice of the U.S Copyright Office to require the removal of any reference to the landscape design when registering architectural works (§923.2, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition). However, sufficiently "sculpture-like" designs might be copyrightable (the 7th Circuit suggested Jeff Koons' Puppy, a huge metal frame in the shape of a puppy and covered with thousands of blooming flowers sustained by an irrigation system within the frame might be copyrightable). —RP88 (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That was a great inside to the US legislation above! From the Russian side it worth mention that "произведение садово-паркового искусства" (~ a creative work in gardens and parks area) is much wider than just a fancy flowerbed. For instance just at April of this year the Moscow government announced the whole Boulevard Ring of 5 boulevards as a historical specially protected "произведение садово-паркового искусства". But we start for now from the most obvious minimum, I would expect further explanations and court rulings for new laws eventually will be here as well. --NeoLexx (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

English translation

Based on the current interwiki "ru:садово-парковое искусство" should be translated as "en:garden design". If so then "произведениий садово-паркового искусства" (in plural genitive) would be "of garden design works". Atop of it there are "ru:памятники садово-паркового искусства" (literally "garden design monuments"): "историко-культурные памятники, которые органично включают в свой состав растения, особенности ландшафта, архитектурные сооружения, скульптуры, цветники" ("historical and cultural monuments which are organically include plants, landscape specifics, architectural constructions, sculptures, flower gardens"). How does it go together with "no sculptures!" or even how to translate it to English — it will take a lot of matches... and/or a lot of vodka... I guess... :-) :-(

Any way I just made an ugly (I just feel it) English sketch of the part 2 of the article 1276. Would be terrific if anyone sacrifices some times to bring it into correct grammatical form so start thinking of English terms correction if any needed:

You may use freely by means of reproduction and distribution of manufactured copies, airing them or sending by cable, broadcasting in the form of images works of architecture, urban planning and garden design located in a place open to the public, or that can be seen from such place.

--NeoLexx (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if the Russian speakers among us could reach a definitive consensus on the question of what is included in "garden design". If A Savin's example above is correct, then no problem. But if it includes sculpture that happens to be in a garden, then we have a very different situation. Also, where does Category:Topiary fit into this. Obviously, simple shapes are below the ToO, but what about animals?

If consensus is achieved, then a summary should be added to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Russia, which now speaks of "garden and landscape art", which to me includes sculptures in a garden..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So far I can tell that the topiary most definitely (as it possible to be definite in any law at all) fells into the amendment — if exposed at a public place and not at someone's private backyard. And thanks to RP88's great inside, it is not copyrightable whatsoever in the US except some very particular cases. So we are cool here.
Concerning the "garden design" a.k.a. "landscape art" a.k.a. whatchamacallit... I am for a month struggling to find a single damn legal definition of it. Either it is so shiny obvious to anyone in Russia except me, or something else. Still any court decision I managed to find treats the "garden design" as a "balanced creative union of natural and artificial elements". So the minimum reading without killing the rest of my common sense would be:
If a sculpture or any other "erection" made as a part of the common "garden design" planning, then it is must be a part of the new amendment exempts. If it was erected later and independently, then more thoughts are needed. Kind of like this, but keep seaching... --NeoLexx (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• • I think I found it. The already earlier mentioned "The order of the Department of Culture and Heritage of the Moscow Government from April 4th, 2014 №319 "About a special protection of an object of the cultural heritage (work of garden design) of regional importance "Boulevard Ring: Yauzsky, Pokrovsky, Chistoprudny, Sretensky, Rozhdestvensky, Petrovsky, Strastnoy, Tverskoy, Gogolevsky and Suvopovskiy Boulevards." (link)
    The objects of this protection are: (a long list I mostly skept)
    1. The compositional space charachreristics
    ...
    2. The natural and anthropogenic terrain
    ...
    6.1. Federal importance Monument to N. V. Gogol (1952), artist I. V. Tomsky, architect L. G. Golubovsky
    ...
    7. Visual charachteristics (special points of visual perception of the objects of the cultural heritage) formed by the middle of Xxth century
    ...
    7.3 View to the place of the Monument to N. V. Gogol
  • Same for Парк Дружбы (Friendship Park) (link):
    ...
    6.1.2. Sculptural composition "Bread" (1963)...
    ...
  • So either recent Moscow orders are legally void — which would be a rather brave speculation from an amateur like myself :-) — or "garden design works" are very clearly expressed here as a creative combination of natural and artificial elements including any statues that form a part of their artistic value. Unless there are counterarguments to this view to the situation. --NeoLexx (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

In Russian cities, most statues and monuments stand somewhere in public green spaces, parks, boulevards, and similar locations; but using common sense, I would not consider most of them as elements of garden design (with the exception of sculptural compositions which are part of the whole garden ensemble, like it is the case in Summer Garden; but right now I'm failing to find a similar example with a modern/copyrighted ensemble). So I think before we start to restore anything of non-architectural FoP cases, relevant court decisions are needed here; even though it may take years to wait. --A.Savin 20:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

> right now I'm failing to find a similar example with a modern/copyrighted ensemble But these are exactly two my samples from above. Monument to N. V. Gogol by I. V. Tomsky: published (erected) 1952, Tomsky died 1984, nowhere 70 years are observed. Sculptural composition "Bread" by Vera Mukhina et al.: published (erected) 1963, Mukhina died 1953, other coauthors even later. By keep reading the last order also 6.2 Monument to Miguel de Cervantes (1981) of A. Sola (still happily alive). All this clearly and straightly enumerated as parts of works of garden design. It is not a court decision but it will never be in these cases. Because these are acting state approved orders. No one will vandalize some of it just to officially contest the state about the cultural heritage. Not in Russia at least. :-) But it seems to me that the acting official order is just as good as any court decision. Sure the precautionary principle is always on the background and I'm far from seeing any sculpture near by trees to be exempted. But where it is already clearly officially stated, we could accept it as it is. --NeoLexx (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

File:A Boy was Born - Benjamin Britten - page header.jpg

Knowing UK's low threshold of originality, is this image copyrightable? It is of a copyrightable work "A Boy Was Born" by an author who died in 1976. Its copyright in UK is 1976 + 70 years, so it will expire in December 31, 2046. Its copyright in US is 95 years after first publication in UK (1933) based on URAA. (I could not find the copyright registration, so it's copyrightable by default.) Whether the image is ineligible in the US is irrelevant. The matter is eligibility in the UK. --George Ho (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that text is copyrightable anything beyond the typographical content, which is only 25 years in the UK (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Typographical copyright). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There was some British court ruling recently where some newspaper headlines were found to meet the threshold of originality for literary works. I'm not sure how complex those headlines were, but I hope that the title of the book isn't too complex for British standards... --Stefan4 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre: It says, "copyright-expired work". The work hasn't expired yet in the UK at the time of scanning. --George Ho (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: In this case, I think by "work" he just means the cover page. You are right that this wording could be amended. If you want to nominate it for deletion, go ahead, but please mention me so that I know. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential copyvios within Hong Kong protest photographs

The new user Taifoklau (first edit 28 September 2014) has uploaded 10 photographic images relating to the 2014 Hong Kong protests, however at least three of them have already been confirmed to be copyright violations. This user has been taking copyrighted photographs from various different Hong Kong newspapers and photographers and uploading them to Commons under the claim that they are his "own work". Should I be assuming good faith, or should I be cautious that the rest of the images aren't also possible copyvios? --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 05:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant deletion requests for confirmed copyvios can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/File:9.26 CGO Civil Plaza protesters.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Police Weapons Supply for Chief Executive's Office 20141002.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Occupy Central Protesters in Causeway Bay 20140928.jpg. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 05:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: A mass deletion request sounds appropriate. You can use VisualFileChange (highly recommended!) to ease the process. Feel free to ping me if you want me to make the request instead. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: - Sure, go ahead.

I also happen to notice that while the three images nominated for deletion thus far have no EXIF data, the other images feature EXIF data coming from different cameras, with some coming from an Apple iPhone 5s and some from a Panasonic DMC-LX7. Not sure whether this information may be relevant to deciding the validity of the uploader's "own work" claim (perhaps we can get a statement from the uploader themselves). --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 21:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Donating photos by email

If notable people email me photos of themselves with a message saying something like "Here, I'll put this in the public domain for Wikipedia", I assume that isn't good enough for Commons' copyright standards. What else should I ask them for? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

First, you need to ask the right person. The copyright holder is the only one that can place a copyrighted work into the public domain or issue a valid free copyright license for it. That's usually not the subject of the photo, but rather the photographer. As for the rest, see Commons:OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was worried about that. Hopefully people won't mind putting me in touch with whatever friend or family member clicked the shutter. Thanks. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Election campaign pics

What's allowed? I have uploaded some Congress party election pics in Category:INC in Chinawal. Pics doesn't show flag of Congress party properly, but I think u can see symbol of party. It forms very small part of my work. Are these images OK or should I photoshop to blacken that Congress party symbol? ABHIJEET (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that the flag is protected by copyright. See File:Flag_of_the_Indian_National_Congress.svg. Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

ABHIJEET -- If it's "de minimis" (as it sounds like), then should be fine... AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I think my images do not meet 'de minimis' as per these guidelines. In my images, X is congress party symbol. And I have uploaded images in relation to Congress party. Filename, description, category, all are related to Congress party. I will try to blackout those symbols to avoid surprise deletion in my absence. Thanks. ABHIJEET (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Improper attribution

Many of those files are improperly attributed to the original File:Korintisk1.png and some 2nd or 3rd degree Derivative works of this file:

• BluePillar.png
• BluePillar.svg
• EvilPillar1.svg
• EvilPillar2.svg
• EvilPillar3.svg
• EvilPillar4.svg
• EvilPillar5.svg
• GreenColumn.jpg
• GreenPillar.png
• GreenPillar.svg
• OrangeColumn.jpg
• OrangePillar.svg
• PurplePillar.svg
• RedPillar.png
• RedPillar.svg
• YellowPillar.png
• YellowPillar.svg

Could someone help fixing these? --user.js (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@.js: What is the problem exactly? I don't understand how they are misattributed... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Ak grupa kampinos mapa01.jpg

Possible copyright violation. It's mark as "PD-self" but it looks like a scan from the book.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And also:

• File:Ak grupa kampinos cm01.jpg

Probably not from a book, but from an informative table located in public place. A DR created. Ankry (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Permission via social media

If someone posts a photo on a Facebook or Twitter with accompanying tweet or comment saying something like "Sure, I'll put this in the public domain for you all to use", is that good enough for Commons? Would it make a difference if they also added the words "I'm the owner of the image"? Are Twitter's "verified accounts" reliable evidence that the account owner is the notable person/company in question. Should the Wikimedia uploader send a screenshot of the social media post to OTRS, or is there a better way to document the permission? Thanks! --Arctic.gnome (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This whole thing would be very situation-dependent, I think, and probably needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis like most other permission statements. However, to address the last parts of your post:

1. We should be able to accept that a post from a Twitter-verified account is actually from that person or his agent(s), unless there has been significant gaming of that system.
2. A screenshot of the post and a link to the post would seem good to me. (Just a link would probably suffice, but the screenshot serves in case the post is later deleted or made private.)
3. Technically, I don't know that it would even need to go to OTRS if the claim is based on a public post, but if you are sending that accompanying screenshot, sending an email to OTRS with the attachment could be a good way of archiving it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"I'm the owner of the image" is too ambiguous IMO, as it would also be true for someone who "owns" a print of a photography created by somebody else. The wording should be simple and unequivocal, like "I shot the original photo/image" or "I created this drawing by myself". Besides, we should not accept a "social media permission" for not-self-created works. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File says "by christian vigna, © All right reserved"

File:Grand Kudu, Eritrea.jpg I also see no evidence for the entire statement, which is "Author christian vigna, Granted permission for use on Wikipedia.org for Eritrea site. © All right reserved by christian vigna". Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Even if this

""Author christian vigna, Granted permission for use on Wikipedia.org for Eritrea site."

is correct, which I don't see, it is not sufficient as images on Commons and WP require a free license for all use, not just WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of Public Domain Images

I am wanting to use the undernoted Wikimedia Commons image in a book I am writing but I am a bit confused by the accompanying detail about the image.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_Chastise_%28the_Dambusters%27_Raid%29_16_-_17_May_1943_CH9750.jpg

On one hand we are told under Permission that:-

Permission (Reusing this file)

This image was created and released by the Imperial War Museum on the IWM Non Commercial Licence. Photographs taken, or artworks created, by a member of the forces during their active service duties are covered by Crown Copyright provisions. Faithful reproductions may be reused under that licence, which is considered expired 50 years after their creation.

But as you can see even this suggests that the licence has expired 50 years after creation of image which was in 1943. Then in the Licensing section I am told it is in public domain so that I can definitely use it for any purpose. But if this is true then why would you bother about the non commercial licence permission issued by the IWM as they would not seem to have any overall right to images produced by/for the Crown in any event?

This image is in the public domain because it is a mere mechanical scan or photocopy of a public domain original, or – from the available evidence – is so similar to such a scan or photocopy that no copyright protection can be expected to arise. The original itself is in public domain for the following reason: Public domain This artistic work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain.

This is because it is one of the following:

   It is a photograph created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957; or
   It was commercially published prior to 1964; or
   It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created by the United Kingdom Government prior to 1964.

HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply) More information.

I obviously want to assume the Public Domain clause and all contained therein takes precedence over the Permission section but is this true?

can anyone help me with this.

Thank you,

Ian

The original site suggests that the Imperial War Museum is claiming that they hold the copyright on the image, with "© IWM (CH 9750)". This is also implied by them offering it under licence, since you can't licence something in the public domain. Perhaps they scanned it and consider that scanning (under UK copyright law) generates a new copyright. On the other hand, the uploader to Commons is claiming that it's public domain due to its age and origin, and that scanning doesn't generate a new copyright (which has been tested under US copyright law). What you (and your publisher) can think about is what is the chance that IWM would take legal action regarding their copyright claim, and whether you'd be willing to defend the public domain argument. --ghouston (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Screenshot of Microsoft Paint unter Windows 8.1

Hey there,

I would like to upload a screenshot of Microsoft Paint unter Windows 8.1. Is that okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustedCreeper (talk • contribs)

@TrustedCreeper: Hi,

No, these are under a copyright by Microsoft. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Boulder Creek Scout Reservation entrance

If a high-resolution version of this photo showing the entrance to the Boulder Creek Scout Reservation (located in the US) was released under a free content license, would the blue "No camper vehicles" sign to the left of the entrance road pose a copyright issue, or would the sign be a case of being ineligible for copyright and/or de minimis? --Gazebo (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it would be a problem, but your images aren't quite legible. Why don't you upload the full-size versions to Flickr or Picasa or something where we can actually see them?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing the sign in the second image, it would certainly be PD-Text by itself (simple coloured text), so I don't see a problem with the main image at all. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Are these pictures acceptable for Commons?

Dutch violinist Isabelle van Keulen: [2]

The webpage containing the photos states: "The photo material is free of copyright provided that the reproduction quotes the name of the photographer Marco Borggreve." Is this acceptable for upload to Commons?Buxtehude (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically {{Attribution}} might fit, but personally I would hesitate before uploading with that template, because it's not clear to me from the wording that the website person fully understands all the implications. Sometimes people use similar-sounding language when they actually only intend their images to be used as general "promo photos"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You might try to contact her management in Hannover[3] and ask for a formal permission. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ghibli Museum

I just nominated one of these, File:Ghibli Museum, Mitaka (9409617862).jpg, for deletion as falling foul of COM:FOP#Japan but I'm wondering if all of the entries in Category:Ghibli Museum do for the reason that the building, the Ghibli Museum is very much a work of art itself; from that article, (designer) "Miyazaki's aim was to make the building itself part of the exhibit", and he is very much still alive.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Improper licensing

These photos lack the proper licenses and sources, all tagged with {{Own}} and are probably not the uploader's (Emperortikacuti (talk · contribs)) own work.

• File:Juan Manuel De Rosas.jpg
• File:Andres De Santa Cruz.png
• File:Diego Portales minister.jpg
• File:Ramon Castilla.jpg
• File:Manuel Bulnes Prieto Chilean general.png
• File:Manuel Blanco Encalada Chilean admiral.jpeg (--> duplicate)
• File:Agustin Gamarra Peruvian general.png (--> duplicate)

They seem like they might be in the public domain, but obviously the correct authors and sources would need to be added to determine that. Any suggestions about what to do here? —Mikemoral♪♫ 08:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For most, {{PD-Art|PD-old}} would be the appropriate tagging. --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That still leaves a lack of the proper authors and sources, however. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Info 2 files tagged with duplicate. Gunnex (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Cat and Mouse Act Poster - 1914.jpg

Could this be licensed as {{PD-UK-anon}}? It seems to have been published in 1914, and while there is no explicit authorship information, it was attributed to a suffragette organization. -FASTILY 22:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

An organization most often is not the author in the sense relevant for copyright (with some limited exceptions which are not particularly relevant to poster art, as far as I'm aware)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is some text at the bottom of the page, but the image quality is too poor to read that text. If the text contains the name of the author, then {{PD-UK-unknown}} doesn't apply.

If the author isn't credited there, but the author's name was revealed at some other point within 70 years after publication of the poster, then {{PD-UK-unknown}} doesn't apply either. If the author isn't credited there, I would accept a claim that the author is anonymous unless proven otherwise. We can't always make such assumptions in all situations. For example, most buildings are unsigned, but the architect of a building is still typically identified somewhere else, but for a poster like this, I would assume that this assumption normally would be fine. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Living statues copyrighted? (currently 437 images)

Do we consider Living statues as works of art and thereby copyrightable? I was wondering about, when I found File:Levende beelden opening theater Spijkenisse.JPG, which is probably not covered by FOP of The Netherlands as being indoors. --Túrelio (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's OK to take photographs of people performing in other ways, I don't see why it wouldn't be OK to take photos of people performing in this way. AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

COM:COSTUME might be of interest here … --El Grafo (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Even outdoors and in countries where FOP applies to artistic works, it seems dubious that FOP would apply to living statues given their impermanence, even if a performer got into costume, did a performance, and got out of costume all at the same spot without going anywhere else in between. A living statue is likely not as copyrightable as a statue made of inanimate material; whether a design applied via body paint would be copyrightable might depend on the elaborateness of the design. Under US copyright, clothing itself is a useful article but this might not apply to body paint; from what one understands, images and artistic designs on the surface of clothing can be copyrighted. (On the issue of body paint and utilitarian functions, if a person used (for example) colored sunscreen as body paint to both prevent sunburn and to convey a visual or aesthetic effect, it would seem that an artistic or sufficiently elaborate design could still be copyrightable.) --Gazebo (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps copyright as an artistic performance -- eg we can't upload pictures of a play taken from the stalls of a theatre. Jheald (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That starts to get into performer rights more than copyright, and I'm not sure if that's true.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jheald -- In which country does that apply? There are plenty of photographs of actors on stage on Commons (of course, a video might be completely different)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I wouldn't take their existance on Commons as solid proof that this is really o.k. --Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: You're probably right. Looking at the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, I think what I was thinking about was performance rights, which can apply (s. 180(2)(a)) to "a dramatic performance (which includes dance and mime), ... which is, or so far as it is, a live performance given by one or more individuals" Performance rights are infringed (s. 182(1)(a)) by anyone who "makes a recording of the whole or any substantial part of a qualifying performance directly from the live performance, ..." where (s. 180(2)) "'recording', in relation to a performance, means a film or sound recording" made under various circumstances; and (s. 5B(1)) "... 'film' means a recording on any medium from which a moving image may by any means be produced."

So it does indeed seem that this relates only to moving pictures, not stills -- at least in UK law; but also presumably in the requirements of EU directives, and international treaties, to the extent that they are embodied in UK law. Of course one law we're always especially interested in is US law, but presumably there are corresponding provisions. Jheald (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The current info on concert photography indicates that still photos should not raise copyright issues (video and/or audio recordings might be an issue.) Of course, with a concert, there is more emphasis on audio and less on the actions and visuals of the performer(s). --Gazebo (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Under Swedish law, only sound and video recordings of performances seem to be protected, and you can't copy someone else's performance by making it yourself. I would therefore assume that photographs never can violate performance rights. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• In Sweden, there have been a number of cases where clothes have been found to be copyrighted by the tailor as artistic works. If the clothes meet the threshold of originality, I would therefore assume that permission from the tailor is needed under Swedish law. I am not sure exactly how to determine if some clothes meet the threshold of originality or not, but I would assume that at least the clothes in File:CentertelavivsiyurDSCN3188.JPG meet the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Canada.svg

• 

Is the Canadian flag copyrightable? It was under subject to Crown copyright at the time of publication. Is there proof that Canada put this flag under public domain? Also, if still copyrighted in Canada on 1 January 1996, it may still be copyrighted in the US under URAA. --George Ho (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find it in any listing of official Commons policies or guidelines, but there seems to be an unwritten dictum that all basic national flags are allowed on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The information at {{PD-Canada-Crown}} indicates that the Canadian government considers Crown-copyrighted works that were published before 1964 to be out of copyright even if the URAA restored US copyright on such works. However, the information here indicates that the process by which the flag was chosen started in 1964, so {{PD-Canada-Crown}} probably does not apply. --Gazebo (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The talk page for the {{PD-Canada}} template on the English Wikipedia has a claim that the Canadian government believes that Canadian Crown copyright expires worldwide. Maybe an OTRS volunteer should look into this so that the {{PD-Canada-Crown}} template can be adjusted if needed. --Gazebo (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

BSD license still a valid free license?

In a current thread on COM:AN/U an early uploader (2004-2008) to Commons was accused of having uploaded images under an unfree license. The somewhat uncommonly looking license tag, which he had stored since 2006 at User:Dysprosia/lic, was finally found to be the official 3-clause or "Revised BSD License", "New BSD License", or "Modified BSD License", for which we even have the ready-made template {{BSD}} on Commons. Currently our Category:BSD Licenses contains nearly 2000 media files with a BSD license, a part of them are also under other free licenses. As some of my colleagues accepted (or were misled by) the nominators claim that "BSD is not a free license", I want to ask the copyright-interested part of the community for their opinion about the validity of this license. For sure, we don't need to discuss that this license is unsuitable for media files, as today likely nobody will apply it to new uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Although I don't like GFDL, GPL, Apache, etc. for media files, I don't recommend deleting files instead of discussing about those licenses first. Moreover BSD is listed as a free license at Commons:Copyright_tags#Other_free_tags. What we really need is a fresh proposal of Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed to decide what are the acceptable licenses for Commons (for "own" works, at least). Jee 15:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine; it basically only requires that you keep the license with the work, whether in source or binary form.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a family of free license, allowing the use of the work for every use, including commercial, with of without an attribution clause depending of the specific license. --Dereckson (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't expect commons to do something consistent, like interpret copyright licenses reasonably. --Elvey (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem with the File:Tux-G2.svg artwork

Moved back because issues with the file still pressent.

I noted than the File:Tux-G2.svg (also known as Crystal Tux) released by CrystalXP.net are released under the CC-BY-NC-SA license, that, unfortunatelly, is not allowed in Commons. This file in particular, says in the description than the SVG has been made from scratch following the tutorial for create them. Therefore, the CC-BY-NC-SA covers this file, too.

Some important notes:

• First, the current original Tux design is in the public domain, but may be outside the scope of this discussion. Therefore, the design of the Tux-G2 (from CrystalXP.net) seems bellow the Treshold of originality (only few geometrical forms to get a stylized penguin).

• Second, there is several screenshots (specifically this case containing icons consisting of derivate works of the Tux-G2, and I think than them may be de minimis in these screenshots.

Then, I ask the following:

• If the file is really bellow the Treshold of originality, is possible to keep in Commons?
• For the screenshot, do you consider icons pressent on them de minimis?
• If not, is there an OTRS ticket or any authorization from the authors to allow the usage the artwork (and its derivates) in the Wikimedia projects (excluding de minimis cases)? Is possible to ask the author for special permission?

I opened this thread in order to discusse this issue before speedy deleting the affected file(s) (excluding de minimis cases), because are widely used (mosthly for illustrating the Tux versions) and may affect several Wikimedia projects. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tŭ-G2.svg is not remotely below the threshold of originality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To expand: most logos die on their text. The ruling on File:Best_Western_logo.svg basically says that once we take the text away, all we have left is an uncopyrightable pentagon. There's much more then that in this Tŭ icon. There's other examples in Commons:Threshold_of_originality, but I don't see anything that sans text approaches this complexity.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Yes, there are issues with the logo still present on commons. There's already an open DR: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tux-G2.svg. --Elvey (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Mississippi Lawmen.jpg

I have a question about this photo by Charles Moore. The uploader states that the copyright has expired in the United States. Yet this site indicates the photo--which was supposedly first published in LIFE Magazine in 1962--is still copyrighted. As well, this photo gives credit to Steven Kasher Gallery, New York. While the photo isn't posted online at that gallery's website, that gallery clearly states "© 2014 Steven Kasher Gallery" on all its pages. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

People slap copyright notices everywhere, claim copyright where it's ludicrous. The question is, where was it first published? If in the Life magazine in 1962, Life magazine was renewed, and since Charles Moore was alive at the time, the image would have been covered. (Steven Kasher Gallery almost certainly has no claim on it.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

except that Charles Moore was a stringer with a distribution deal, not employed by Life, who did not register or renew copyright for his original work. however, given the supine attitude towards the many copyfraud claims, i can have little confidence on PD-no renewal decisions here. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 20:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It was registered for copyright when it was published as part of Life. You don't have to register each little part of a collective work separately. Life was renewed, and given that Charles Moore was alive, that renewal included his work in Life.

And passive-aggressive attacks on fellow editors makes it harder for people to work together on a project. It's simply difficult for most works to establish that they weren't renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

GLAM project and licensing of the images uploaded

Hi,
I am a medical student now acting as the Wikimedian-in-residence for the GLAM project undertaken by the Department of Pathology of my medical school. The department of pathology has several images taken using an automated camera attached to a microscope. The microscope is under the ownership of the same department and the head of the department (HoD) is in charge of maintaining the microscope and the camera. The HoD of pathology is interested in donating these images to Wikimedia Commons. However, they do not want to take part in the tedious process of uploading each picture, so they assigned the task to me. I am given a set of images and the description that should go with each of the images. I am planning to upload them from my personal account and I have obtained consent from the HoD of pathology to share the image under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. I am planning to use the Upload Wizard to upload these pictures, but I figured out that the upload Wizard does not permit me to upload someone else's work unless it is previously licensed by CC-BY-SA or other similar licenses. The pictures I am planning to upload now are unpublished so far in any media, digital or print. The HoD has informed me that there are no authors for each image, because the photography is automated. What is the procedure I should undertake in order to bring these images to Wikimedia Commons using my personal Wikimedia Commons account? I am familiar with the Upload Wizard, so if there is a way I can do it with the Upload Wizard, it would be awesome. Further, I will conduct Wikimedia workshops for the faculty in this department, who might want to upload these pictures using their accounts at a later time, for whom the Upload Wizard is the easiest tool to start uploading. Please let me know experts' thoughts on this. Thanks in advance! --Netha Hussain (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The old upload form allows this kind of upload, but it is not the most convenient for uploading large quantities of photos. For that I would recommend Commons:Batch uploading, where you can ask a bot to do it for you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

you can also use com:commonist. there was a previous discussion about Commons:Requests for comment/Xrays. i would suggest talking to User:Jmh649 about his process. i think he gets patient signed releases. use Template:PD-medical Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 20:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Have your department head send an email per Commons:Email_templates/Consent

What I do is I put the email together. Email the person I am requesting release from to reply that they agree to these conditions and then send the email to OTRS. THan you can upload all the images

Let me know if you need help with this. James Heilman, MD (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the head of the department of pathology has sent an OTRS request. The department has also agreed to share the images under CC-BY-SA 4.0 License. Thank you for helping me out. --Netha Hussain (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the logo of Cercle Proudhon !

File:Cercle_Proudhon.jpg (fixed link) This is not at all the logo of Cercle Proudhon in 1912 ! It is the logo of the publishing house Éditions Ars (is name is in the last page of the reprint here http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb32735652k/date) wich do a reprint of the Cahiers du Cercle Proudhon in the 1990's. This publishing house take it from Widerstand Group of Ernst Niekisch.--90.49.12.16 19:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Publication of films

File:Clean & Clear TV ad 1956.ogv currently has incorrect copyright tags. The file comes from archive.org where the file is claimed to be in the public domain, but it doesn't say why it is in the public domain, and I'm not sure if the claim on that page is correct. How do you determine if a film is published or not? Under Swedish law, broadcasting a work on television or radio, or displaying it at a cinema, doesn't seem to constitute publication. This page suggests that broadcasting a film or performing it at a cinema doesn't automatically constitute publication in the United States, but that you should apply COM:PACUSA to determine if a film was published during one of those acts. That is, a film would be published if, before 1978, anyone could view the film, and there were no restrictions on photography (or filming or sound recording I presume).

Is this interpretation of the term "publication" correct? It needs to be established whether it is a published film or not before the copyright status can be determined. I assume that you can usually create photographs in private homes (where TVs are located) but that you can usually not create photos at cinemas, which would make an important difference. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c01B.html paraphrases Paramount Pictures Corp. vs Leslie Rubinowitz, et al as saying

All-Star cited noted copyright expert Nimmer, who (writing about the 1976 Act) wrote: “Under the current Act the distribution of copies of a motion picture to television stations for broadcast purposes constitutes an act of publication.” (M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, §4.11[B], 4.55 (1978)) The Court said that the Nimmer citation applied to instances where prints went to regional offices as part of distribution, thus subjecting the copyright owner to loss of control. Here, the licenses that Paramount signed specified that stations had to return the prints, not allow copying, not part with prints during lease, and limit their broadcast to only nonpaying audiences. “Paramount’s explicit and exhaustive reservation of rights cannot be interpreted as a general publication which would have placed the series in the public domain.”

I suppose that makes it hard to prove anything, but I seriously doubt when the company sent out their advertisement, they worried about getting the prints back or where or how it was displayed. I have some concern, though, that it's not a stand-alone advertisement, that it's part of a show boosting its sponsor. In which case, it might depend on whether it ever went out for reruns, in which case it would be published and almost certainly not copyrighted or renewed, but there's no guarantee it went out for reruns.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In the case of US copyright, the English Wikipedia information on the public domain with regards to movies and TV shows is likely relevant, not just on publication but also the issue of underlying material (i.e. a movie (or, for that matter, a TV show) may incorporate music or be based on a preexisting literary work.) --Gazebo (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To expand: For the purposes of US copyright, public performance or wireless broadcast of a work does not constitute publication. At the same time, the act of a movie distributor placing copies of a movie in its regional exchanges (branch offices) for rental to exhibitors is considered to constitute publication of the movie itself, and publication of a movie also constitutes publication of the screenplay elements that are incorporated into the movie. For TV shows, the question of publication is less clear because wireless broadcast does not count and it is currently unclear as to whether syndication counts.

For movies (and likely TV shows), it is possible for a movie to incorporate preexisting material such as music or elements from a literary work and for the preexisting material as incorporated into the movie to be copyrighted even if the movie falls out of copyright-a notable case where this issue arose is the Frank Capra movie It's a Wonderful Life. In addition, it is not legally clear as to whether the publication of a movie constitutes publication of music incorporated into the movie; this may mean that music that was incorporated into a movie but otherwise unreleased may be unpublished for US copyright purposes. --Gazebo (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with file we're trying to re-upload that you say is deleted

During the month of December 2013 I put up and edited a Wikipedia article about the late Turkish physicist Hakkı Boran Ögelman I did this at the direction of my employer, Tumay Tumer, a physicist who had been a student and colleague of Ögelman’s.

At the time I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for use in the article a 1981 photo of Ögelman, along with a fair use rationale and the following caption written by my boss: [Photograph of Prof. Hakki B. Ögelman. Hakki Ögelman in front of the Cukurova University (CÜ) Solar House construction in 1981. Photo is taken by Hakki’s friend Mehmet Erbudak. (Permission of Prof. Mehmet Erbudak to release it to public domain.)]

(I think now that I probably should have included Professor Erbudak's letter to my boss releasing the photo rights, but since his letter had been written in Turkish we assumed that it would be best to just summarize it in English.)

Anyway, in the past year I’ve returned periodically to the article to try to improve its content. It was not until this fall that I noticed that the image had been deleted shortly after I uploaded. Per the article’s Revision History, on 22 December 2013, User:Tucoxyn edited the page as follows: “Remove red-linked image & caption – file deleted from Wikimedia Commons on 20 December 2013”.

On 17 September I posted a question ("How get photo reinstated and 'unclear' header removed?") about it on my Talk page but received no reply.

So, taking a guess that the reason the image had been removed was that the statement of permission didn’t meet Wikimedia standards, my boss emailed Professor Erbudak in Turkey asking him to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons and formally release the rights himself. When Professor Erbudak attempted to do so, he was unsuccessful, receiving the following response: “Hakki B. Ogelman.png. There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted.”

We’re stymied about what to do next.

In the Commons Help Desk Archive for April 2013, I found, under the heading ‘Rights / pictures,’ an inquiry by User:Jdbontemps on 9 April 2013 regarding a similar situation . Two responses advised Jdbontemps to go back and request undeletion of the original file.

My problems with trying the same approach are: (a) That I never owned the original file; and (b) That I can’t even find any direct mention of deletion of the file, so that I could try requesting that it be undeleted. There is no direct mention of the image deletion in the Revision History. Nor can I find mention of it anywhere in the Wikimedia deletion log for 20 December. When I search for it under my user name or under Ögelman, I get “No matching items in log.”

Please advise how we can best get past this circular situation.

Thank you.

P.S. If it’s possible for your response to identify more work for me and less for Professor Erbudak, that would be good. I’m the assistant who’s supposed to be doing the work. He's doing my boss a favor here.

Thank you.

Pleasantville1972 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Pleasantville1972: The copyright holder has to contact OTRS, an agent could then request the undeletion of your upload. Please be aware that fair use is not accepted on Commons.    FDMS  4    02:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The deletion log of this file is at [[4]], but it just shows, what you already suspected. The file was deleted for missing a clear permission (via OTRS), and usually can be undeleted, once a valid permission is mailed. GermanJoe (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Need help. Not sure if image on scientific article is uploadable to Commons

Hi. Sorry my poor domain of English. I need to know if certain image on this scientific article is uploadable to commons. I have looked into the Terms of Use of PLOS website and i understood that content it's licensed on CC-BY 2.5, although i am not sure if this applies to figures on the article, or I misunderstood the whole thing. So, i came here to ask for help. Thanks in advance, --Ninovolador (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ninovolador, that applies to figures as well. Please use {{PLOS}} instead of the standard CC-BY-templates and add the file to Category:Media from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Make sure you get the highest resolution version (probably the .tif file(s) they offer for download). Also, at PLOS each figure has its own doi, so it might be a good idea to put that somewhere into the file description. If you drop me a message after upload I can have a look at it if you'd like that. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-IDGov

Hi, I think the wording of this template is misleading. It leads to situations like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pelantikan Jokowi rahmat3-770x465.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jokowi swearing-in, 2014.jpg. Does anyone know what is exactly allowed from the Indonesian government? Thanks for inputs. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant part of the law is quoted in the template. It is [translated http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/30382/11424187703id_copyright_2002_en.pdf/id_copyright_2002_en.pdf] into English by UNESCO. In my opinion it's pretty unambiguous. To quote:

There shall be no infringement of Copyright for:

[...]

b. publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published;

[...]

HaEr48 (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have some doubt that File:Jokowi-Rudy eating.jpg is really published by the Indonesian government and/or covered by this template. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The photograph appears on the website of the City Government of Surakarta. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any definition of government in the copyright law, so I can't tell if a city government falls within the definition. It would seem reasonable to regard it as such, though. However, I think the problem for us may be with the latter half of Article 14(b), which states "... except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published". I did not see any copyright statement on the image page itself, on the page containing the article in which the photograph appears, or on the website's home page, but then I don't speak Bahasa Indonesia so someone who can will need to look carefully at the website and see if there is a copyright page somewhere. However, I did note that the home page of the English version of the website does contain the line "Copyright (c) 2014 – Pemerintah Kota Surakarta" at the bottom. This might be a sufficient "statement ... at the time the work is published" to indicate that the copyright in the photograph is protected. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that may be sufficient. That's why I started this thread. So not really misleading, but used inappropriately because of the second part of the clause (b) is not taken into account. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Old Hollywood movies in Japan

While re-writing the Russian version of "Roman Holiday" I decided to add "Copyright status" subsection. For Japan and for pre-1954 movies it was once a harsh international issue but the last news (no definitive decision) I found are from 2012:

• Argument for the extension of the copyright protection over cinematographic works (2007)
• Introduction (2012)

Anyone knows some fresh news or sources on the topic? --NeoLexx (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know exactly how the 1953 rule works. There are more rules to consider:
  • Under the copyright act of 1899, many films are protected for 38 years from the death of the director. Recently, a court ruled that the copyright act of 1970 didn't shorten the term to any work (see the reference in {{PD-Japan-film}}). This means that many films created before 1971 are subject to a copyright term of 38 years p.m.a., provided that this term is longer than 50 years or 70 years from publication. The director of this film, w:William Wyler, died in 1981, and his death year might matter here. 1981 was less than 38 years ago.
  • During World War II, Japan was accused of violating the Berne Convention and its copyright treaty with the United States. Accordingly, the w:Treaty of San Francisco forced Japan to extend the copyright term to many foreign works. The extension corresponds to the length of the treaty violation, for example 3844 days for pre-war Dutch films, or 3846 days for pre-war Norwegian films. See ja:戦時加算 (著作権法) for details. Japan was at war with the United States until both countries signed the Treaty of San Francisco on 28 April 1952. For a 1953 film, some parts of the film may have been created before that date. If so, then it is my understanding that those parts would be subject to a war extension corresponding to the number of days between the day of creation and 28 April 1952. The exact date of creation seems to matter here, unlike other situations where only the year matters. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Actually I would not dare to make my own conclusions on the copyright status of "Roman Holiday" in Japan, I mean in the wiki-article itself :-) So I though mainly of some fresh published court rulings or interstate agreements specifically about this movie (or a list where the movie is included). --NeoLexx (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Improper licence

File:Flag of Port Said Governorate.PNG and File:Coat of arms of Port Said Governorate.PNG probably aren't author's work. Could somebody take a look? --Edgars2007 (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The uploader arranged a conversion of File:Flag_of_Kafr_El-Sheikh_Governorate.PNG to SVG, but English isn't his first language, and he doesn't write on his talk page here. Tineye found nothing older to support probably. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft Windows XP Logo 2.svg

Hi, There is very little difference with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg. Do you think it really needs a separate treatment? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

While I seriously dislike the author, he does know his Windows stuff, and own work is apparently not exactly the same situation as for the other {{Trademark}} SVG. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete photo File:Shanghai International Debutante Ball.JPG

I would like to know how I can get the photo File:Shanghai International Debutante Ball.JPG deleted from Wikimedia Commons due to a copyright issue? This photo has been taken from a magazine and it is most likely not owned by the person who published it. --Davetheknave71 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Davetheknave71: I put it for speedy deletion having found a larger version on a website for London Season (with magazine). Thank you for letting us know! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Heads-up: "Wikimedia Logos Have Been Freed!"

According to this October 24 message on the Wikimedia blog, "starting today, the Wikimedia logos will be freely licensed on Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license". Yana Welinder, Legal Counsel, says there:

We would really appreciate your help in replacing the {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} templates for all Wikimedia logos on Commons! Each of the Wikimedia logos in every language version should instead carry the {{Wikimedia trademark}} and {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} templates. The only logos that will not be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 are the MediaWiki and the Community logos, which were originally released under free licenses and do not need to be changed.

So, a lot of work ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have now used the general VP section to ask for opinions on the best way to proceed. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The blog article is a dubious source, the official wmf:Trademark policy is apparently some kind of CC-BY-NC, an auto-delete on commons, unless it is one "non-free" part of a "free" dual-license. Not everything tagged with {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is clearly covered. Quote: "After all, Wikimedia Commons’ mission is to disseminate free and public domain content to everyone. We are thrilled that the copyright status of Wikimedia logos will now be fully aligned with that goal." Unquote, somebody is thrilled to post Newspeak. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Trademark does not equal copyright. ViperSnake151 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Trademark rights are completely distinct from copyright; a policy for one set of rights has no bearing on the other. Trademark still very much restricts actual use of the logos per the policy you mention (and trademark in general), but the "free" status is based on copyright alone and that has (finally) changed, so we don't need the special exemption anymore. The logos are "free" per copyright law (they just have additional trademark restrictions). Good to see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Betty Boop copyright discussion resurrection

(moved from here) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minnie the Moocher (1932).webm had replies that do not appear to address the copyright issue. XCould someone look into this? Note I haven't kept up to date with Commons for several years, so policy may have changed.

> Copyright was renewed. Licence tag claim is false. A search of http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003910311 shows most if not all these uploaded Betty Boop vidoes were renewed from 1959 onwards. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/07#1932_Bamboo_Isle and [1] page 805. 84user (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

> Keep (I am answering here both for this film and for Betty Boop's Bamboo Isle.) Yes, I agree with you, the copyright was renewed by UM&M and the renewal published in 1959. But...

> What is at stake here is the chain of property title after this renewal : Fleischer transferred its rights to Paramount in 1941, who transferred them to UM&M in 1958, who transferred them to NTA, who transferred them to Republic in 1986. The court of appeal for the 9th district ruled in 2011 there was a failure "to satisfy [the] burden of proof regarding the transfer of rights from UM&M to NTA and from NTA to Republic Pictures" [2]. As a consequence of this judgement, all 22 films at Internet Archive, including Betty Boop's Bamboo Isle and Minnie the Moocher, are considered here to be PD.

• How does the failure to transfer the rights from UM&M to NTA affect the original copyright UM&M held (still holds?) in 1959?
• The link at "here" is https://nimia.com/betty-boop-public-domain/ and I cannot see anything specidifc to either film in questions, that page basically says "it depends".
• The Internet Archive hosting files in no way maintains or claims that they are in the public domain - unqualified people can upload stuff there and there is very little oversight.
• The presence of music in the clips, acknowledged as copyrighted Cab Calloway, also makes part of the clip non-public domain. Doesn't Commons policy require the audio be removed?
• The original film did have a copyright notice by U.M.&M. on it, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7VUU_VPI1E .

EDIT to add relevant links:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/07#1932_Bamboo_Isle
• https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015039642049&view=1up&seq=823
• https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/image?id=mdp.39015084450827;orient=0;size=100;seq=120;num=92
• https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015084450827;view=image;seq=120;num=92;q1=Bamboo%20isle;start=1;size=10;page=search

(I'll post a link on Racconish's talk page after this post.) 84user (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Also adding the link for the general rules for the United States: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_Northern_America#United_States_of_America - the first three bullet points are relevant.

84user (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It will all become PD in a decade, but I can't see how it is PD right now. It seems to have been properly renewed by the copyright holder.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I fail to recognize any request for action here other than for someone to generally look into the situation. Can anyone be more specific about what could happen here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

See here. — Racconish ^💬 16:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)