Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/02

Copyright status of "Physical Therapy Department, Deshon General Hospital" photo in the US National Library of Medicine

For this image, there is a "Copyright Statement" that "The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domain." At the same time, the home page for the Images from the History of Medicine (IHM) collection indicates that some of the material in the collection is copyrighted, which is likely the case. Though the "Publication Information" item for the image seems to specify the year 1946, it is not mentioned as to who the author is. --Gazebo (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, is there a useful way to determine the copyright status of this image? (The {{PD-USGov-NIH}} template suggests that the source site be contacted in the event that "is not clearly stated that this specific work is in the public domain.") --Gazebo (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like Deshon was an Army hospital through 1946, and later a VA hospital. I do see other images from Deshon dated 1946 in the NLM library, and I see that this Army page has an image which looks like a cutout from an older publication where a different photo of Deshon was credited to the National Library of Medicine. Given that it was an Army hospital, it is probably PD-USGov in one form or another. PD-USGov-NIH may be as good a guess as any. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The information here (under "Conversion of existing facilities") seems to indicate that Deshon General Hospital was in operation as an Army hospital by 1943, which was some years before 1946. It does seem more likely that the image in question was taken by a US government employee than a private contractor, though it would be interesting to know how the National Library of Medicine came up with the "believed to be public domain" assessment. For applying a license tag to a work, it can be useful to use a specific tag such as {{PD-USGov-NIH}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} instead of a more general tag such as {{PD-USGov}}. At the same time, when determining if a work is a US government work for the purposes of US copyright, knowing that the work was produced by a US government employee as part of their official duties would seem sufficient even it is not known as to which specific agency or department the government employee was working for. The thought now is whether the information about this image satisfies the precautionary principle on Commons as far as the image being out of copyright. --Gazebo (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are really all the same copyright tag, just categorized some. There is no legal difference based on which part of the government authored the file, so PD-USGov really is enough; that should give re-users enough information on whether they can use it or not. It's tags like PD-US which are more preferably avoided if possible. Anyways, the NLM was part of the Army in those days -- it was called the Army Medical Library (and there was an Army Medical Museum); it wasn't transferred to the Public Health Service and renamed until 1956. So either tag would make sense depending on your perspective. It is entirely possible the Library was just documenting the hospital, either for posterity or for a particular publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploading logos allowed?

Is it allowed to upload logos:

• company logos?
• logos of not-for-profit organisations?

The upload wizard seems to EXclude these uploads, yet the commons categories

• Category:Logos of companies
• Category:Logos of organizations

seem full of just such logos

(have checked FAQs not found the answer) tnx Robberd77 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Logos are a common situation. Suggestion: I would like to see llicense-related dialog handled by the upload process. A progressive answer-driven set of questions leading to clear choices of license banners.Pierre5018 (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Trademarks —LX (talk, contribs) 15:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Video of rock concert

Hello! I am wondering if a short clip of a rock concert can be uploaded without sound? I know that a video cannot contain copyrighted audio, so of course it is not ok with sound. If the audio is removed, can a 10 second clip be uploaded to illustrate how a rock singer moves on stage? Just wondering. Thank you! Teemeah (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Subject to what I mention in the next sentence, I don't see why not if the person who recorded the video (and who thus owns the copyright in it) freely licenses it. Note, though, that in some jurisdictions people can assert performers' rights over their performances. I'm not sure what our policy is on recognizing such rights, since they are strictly speaking not a form of copyright. "Commons:Non-copyright restrictions" doesn't mention them. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Smuconlaw: I think we don't consider performing rights, as there are a lot of videos of orchestra performances, too, performing already public domain pieces of music. And it's not a full concert, 10 seconds of movement on stage (not really "performance"). (I shot the video) Teemeah (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Under copyright law, protection of performances is no different to protection of sound recordings, and we do not accept non-free sound recordings as far as I know. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is without sound. Teemeah (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that sound recordings and performances are treated identically under copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan4: Then how can Category:Videos of music exist at all? Teemeah (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Under Swedish copyright law, you need permission from the "performing artist" in order to make a sound or video recording of a performance of a work, if the performance was made less than 50 years ago. Otherwise, you may neither create the recording nor distribute copies of it. If a singer merely is standing on a scene while singing, then I am not sure if his standing there has anything to do with him performing the work, so maybe only sound recordings are protected in that situation. A work is something which meets certain quality requirements, so a film of some people who are merely walking along a street would not count as a video recording of a performance as written instructions on how to walk along a street doesn't meet those quality requirements. A video recording of a play at a theatre is more likely to be a problem, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally a video without sound does not constitute a derivative of a concert, which is essentially music. That may be different for a dance performance. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like we may need to have a wider discussion about whether the Commons should take account of performers' rights. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a rock concert. It hardly constitutes of copyrighted coreography that the singer is pogoing. Nor is it art in any sense. It may illustrate an article about pogoing en:Pogo (dance), and it has no music. Generally, I think this is an interesting discussion, also considering the fact that we have other concert videos with sound. Even if an orchestra is playing a public domain piece of music, if what Stefan4 says is true then we shouldn't have the video at all because it is a "performance". Though I cannot really see what performance can be in sitting on chairs and playing instruments. A coreographed dance performance, including a pop concert where the dancers are dancing behind the singer is a different topic I think. Random movements on stage, without copyrighted sound (eg. during a short break) should not cause copyright problems. Teemeah (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sound is not copyrighted, only recordings thereof. Coreography constitutes a literary work (as it can be written down as text on a paper), and people following those instructions perform the work. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Costa Rica government works (help with Spanish-language copyright law)

I am trying to determine if I can upload scans of an old Costa Rican banknote. An English translation of Costa Rica's current copyright/intellectual property law (Law 6683, as amended by Law 8834 of 3 May 2010) is not available on the WIPO website, only the Spanish version. The Central Bank of Costa Rica has information on their website about the use of images of CR banknotes, but it is focused on commercial use which can be confused with real banknotes, and only mentions copyright when saying that they are the "copyright holder of Costa Rica’s currency design -protected under Law No. 6683".

A search for "estado" (state) in the current copyright law points to Article 63:

"Artículo 63°.- El estado, los consejos municipales y las corporaciones oficiales gozarán de la protección de esta ley, pero , en cuanto a los derechos patrimoniales , los tendrán únicamente por veinticinco años, contados desde la publicación de la obra, salvo tratándose de entidades públicas, que tengan por objeto el ejercicio de esos derechos como actividad ordinaria; en cuyo caso la protección será de cincuenta años."

Which Google Translate says is:

"Article 63 - The state, municipal councils and the official corporations shall enjoy the protection of the law, but in terms of the economic rights concerned, only twenty-five years from the publication of the work, except in the case of public bodies who have aimed at exercising these rights as ordinary activity; in which case protection shall be fifty years."

This doesn't appear any different from the previous version (from 2000), for which the English translation states:

"63. The State, the municipal councils and the official corporations shall enjoy the protection of this Law, but, as far as economic rights are concerned, only for 25 years from the date of publication of the work, except in the case of public bodies whose purpose is the exercise of such rights as their normal activity, in which case protection shall be for 50 years."

In addition to "Economic rights", the copyright law also provides for "moral rights", of which the relevant parts are (from an English translation of the 2000 law...the 2010 updated law, available only in Spanish, needs to be checked):

"13. Independently of his economic rights, even after their assignment, the author shall retain entirely personal, inalienable, unrenounceable and perpetual rights in the work, called moral rights.

14.Moral rights shall include the right:

(b) to demand that he be mentioned by his name or pseudonym as the author of the work in relation to all reproductions and uses thereof;

(c) to prevent any reproduction or communication to the public of his work if it has been distorted, mutilated or altered in any way;"

My interpretation of that suggests that a copyright holder can prevent derivative works, but that is not automatic. Worded a different way: derivative works are permitted, unless the author prevents derivative works. Therefore, works by the Costa Rican government over 25 years old (or in some cases 50 years) meet Commons criteria unless the copyright owner specifies that derivatives cannot be made. The restrictions on commercial use made by the Central Bank of Costa Rica sound like non-copyright restrictions, much like personality rights and freedom of panorama which don't prohibit uploads to Commons, and is covered by Template:Currency.

Can someone who understands Spanish well look at the copyright law to verify this interpretation of copyright on government works in Costa Rica, please? Not only does this apply to my issue with a banknote (from 1960, so over 50 years old) and update to Commons:Currency, but will also allow Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Costa Rica to be expanded with information about government works, which would be a real benefit to Commons. A copyright template for CR government works can then be made. AHeneen (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going off the English description you gave, but it does sound most likely that banknotes are OK after 25 years. Moral rights are separate from copyright, and do not cause something to be non-free. They generally do not control all derivative works like the economic right does ("copyright" is generally equivalent to the economic right); rather they just disallow changes which can prejudice the reputation of the author of the original (such as an unlabeled alteration which can cause people to think that it came from the original author, that sort of thing). So, I would not worry about the moral rights section, and just deal with the economic right, which seems to have a good translation from the earlier law. And yes, it sounds like it is a term of 25 years most likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've created the Costa Rica section at Commons:Currency#Costa Rica and expanded Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Costa Rica with information about government works. AHeneen (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright in space

Quick query - I took this photo at an event last year. However, it's obviously a derivative work (fails DM) of an astronaut's photo. I don't know offhand which astronaut took the photo, but would copyright apply on the International Space Station anyway? If it does, can we assume it's PD-NASA? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think copyright would apply to the author, yes. Just like if one country's citizen took a picture on vacation, the country of origin would still be where it was first published. If it was taken by a NASA astronaut in the course of duties (good chance on a spacewalk; that's not downtime), then it would be PD-USGov. You could also argue that it's incidental; it was the photo that happened to be there (more a question if the expression in that photo adds to the expression of yours), as incidental inclusion does not necessarily cause something to be a derivative work. But I think I found the photo here, taken during the STS-100 mission, so it looks to be PD-USGov-NASA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't the first publication have taken place somewhere on Earth? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the point of potentially legally recognized publication and IP claims has to be on Earth. To date, there are space cowboys but no practising lawyers in orbit, they need too much oxygen.

I would not presume that NASA own the IP. Missions are frequently joint ventures with a number of organizations or public bodies having rights on later publications. Saying that, I would give bags of time to research the background before anyone starting worrying about possible deletion due to uncertainty. --Fæ (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The source country is the country of first publication. If the picture was first published in a non-Berne country, or if it was first published at a place which is not part of a country (for example in outer space, or terra nullius according to the point of view of the country where copyright is claimed), then the citizenship or country of residence of the astronaut determines the source country. However, the country of first publication would normally be a country on Earth. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Frankfurt_Airport_Logo.svg - free or non-free

I came here from a deletion discussion on enwiki where the same image is marked as non-free. It looks to me like the artistry in creating this is copyrightable and the shapes are insufficiently simple. Is there a consensus on this complexity of image ? - Peripitus (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Germany has a very high threshold for logos (they prefer them to be covered by trademark only), so it's probably OK there. As for the US... yeah I have my doubts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The PNG image generated by Mediawiki seems to be fine in Germany. Would the person who created the SVG file be able to claim copyright protection in Germany for producing an SVG file? It does not say by whom the SVG file was created. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

now commons vs. never commons

One of the POTY candidates is Shop_of_Tingqua,_the_painter.jpg. This artist also had a studio, Tingqua_-_The_studio_of_Tingqua_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg. The latter is published with several warnings that this image (in a Hongkong museum) will self-destruct if moved to commons. The former in a U.S. museum is apparently no problem. Is that as it should be? –Be..anyone (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm confident that this is {{PD-old-100}}. I don't see why the copy on the English Wikipedia can't be moved to Commons (or deleted as a duplicate). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue at the English Wikipedia's media copyright questions page. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The author is Tingqua (Guan Lianchang) (1809-1870). - {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1870}}. -- Geagea (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem solved by Anon126, thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Is 539185-M.jpg a public domain image?

File:539185-M.jpg I recently uploaded is a photo of the John Marsh House taken between 1856 and 1868. The house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The specific image is a part of the Historical American Building Survey (HABS), which seems to make it a part of the Library of Congress. The photographer must be long dead and no copyright holder is known. This and other HABS images of the same house have been published elsewhere. Can this image be added to the new article Marsh Creek State Park (California)?

The stone observation tower was attached during the original construction of the house (1853-1856). It was destroyed by an earthquake in 1868 and replaced with a tower built of wood, that had a slightly different appearance. The replacement tower was destroyed by the 1906 San Andreas Fault earthquake. Hence, this image has historic significance to the Marsh Creek State Park article, since the Marsh house is a feature of the park. How should the image be marked so that it will not be deleted? Thanks --Bruin2 (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

For HABS/HAER images, check the official HABS/HAER website, and upload the largest version, if the photo is in the public domain. And give photos meaningful titles, please. This photo is here at the HABS/HAER site. It was taken from John Marsh, Pioneer, by George D. Lyman, published in New York, 1930. While it's questionable that this author had any rights to that photo, I see that the copyright on that book was registered in 1930 (A27553) and renewed in 1958 (R220963).[1]

However, many HABS/HAER images are already at the Commons. In this case, see Category:John Marsh House: we already have this image as File:Historic American Buildings Survey From 'John Marsh, Pioneer', by Dr. George D. Lyman Taken- Late 1850's - John Marsh House, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, Contra Costa County, CA HABS CAL,7-BRENT.V,1-1.tif with a (probably bogus) claim that the photo had been taken by a National Park Service employee. I also notice that we already do have File:John Marsh House (Byron, CA).jpg and that that file has also a questionable license tag: HABS/HAER do not say this was taken by a US. Government employee; they just say it was from some "Gleason collection".[2] Lupo 08:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision made to deleted page

Hi,

The article I created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mintop_Solution) was flagged for deleted by admin DPRoberts534.

Reason given was possible copyright violation of the image I uploaded.

I have emailed the permission from the copyright owner to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Meanwhile, I have loaded an older version of the article without the image in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NupurPathak (talk • contribs) 04:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia; this is a different project hosing media, including for Wikipedia. You can use [3] to communicate with other volunteers there. Jee 05:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Flickr photos of JetBoil camping stoves

Could any of these photos be uploaded to Commons? The photos themselves are freely licensed but it is not clear as to whether there would be issues with copyrighted text or logos on the depicted camping stoves and/or gas cylinders or whether such things would be de minimis.

1. Cooking up some hot sausage patties for breakfast
2. How to make latkes in a jetboil
3. JetBoil3
4. Camp this morning at Pohick Bay (For this specific photo to be useful, it would likely be a case of cropping the photo to focus on the stove and gas cylinder, excluding the large amount of unneeded background.)

--Gazebo (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the license is CC-BY-SA-2.0. Anything with a copyright on the stoves is de minimis. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. A number of non-free images were removed from the JetBoil article in the English Wikipedia on the basis that they were replaceable (and likely so), which means that free images of JetBoil products are useful. --Gazebo (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fotocollectie Anefo - status uncertain

Howzit,

I am aware that Wikimedia hosts a very large collection of images from the Dutch National Archive and the Anefo Collection, per Commons:Nationaal Archief. However, I'm concerned about the status Anefo and/or Nationaal Archief images not yet hosted on Commons. Does the Creative Commons and Public Domain tag extend to all images covered by the Nationaal Archief? Can all remaining images be released on Commons without further authorisation being required?

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The photo archive of Nationaal Archief at gahetna.nl hosts several photo collections (http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/over-fotocollectie). License differs (http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/auteursrecht-fotos). For example the collection Spaarnestad photo is of a news agency and is not CC. The collection from Rijkswaterstaat (1970-1918) is probably http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/q/serie_collectie/Fotocollectie%20Rijkswaterstaat

You are sure when you are allowed to transfer it to commons when there is a CC-BY-SA, or PD sign on the right. To search for pictures with that marks, use "CC-BY-SA", or "Public Domain" in the search query.

Only a part of pohotos labeled as CC-BY-SA are transfered to Commons yet. Sometimes I do so manually (just licensing the with CC-BY-Sa, not using the special license tag for Nationaal Archief as i am unsure if I should).

Nationaal Archief is releasing the ANEFO collection in batches in CC-BY-SA, to double check if they have the rights of that image. "Om er zeker van te zijn dat alle rechten van de initieel ruim 150.000 afbeeldingen qua auteursrechten bij het Nationaal Archief liggen, hebben er zekerheidshalve op de set nog een extra selecties plaatsgevonden. Afbeeldingen waarvan de ‘maker onbekend’ is of welke in een zogenaamde ‘opdracht’ zijn gemaakt zijn eruit gefilterd." http://www.opencultuurdata.nl/wiki/nationaal-archief-fotopersbureau-anefo/

They also seem to post pictures to https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationaalarchief/ with the tag "No known copyright restrictions", I am uncertain about the license of this stream.

--Hannolans (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, not all the images on their site have a rights tag. I was looking specifically at this one and noticed that it's been left blank under "Auteursrechthebbende". I'm guessing that means it's not eligible for Commons, despite being credited specifically to Anefo?

--Katangais (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not yet indeed. Instead you can probably use one of those: http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/q/zoekterm/demonstratie%20Angola%20%22CC-BY-SA%22 --Hannolans (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Add tutorial part about money

I am cannot figure out any information about whether pictures of money is allowed in Wikimedia Commons. Can you please add this to your friendly "'puzzle man comic' of what to post of Commons". Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Commons:Currency. - Jmabel ! talk 06:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I like this, but you haven't answered the part about the "puzzle man comic". When you upload a picture then there gives a set of instructions with the cute little puzzle man comics in it. I feel that there should be some notes about currency. I suggest that the puzzle man guy should like talk about "Most currencies are copyrighted but a few are not. Click here for more. (Link to the Commons:currency Wikimedia Commons page.)"

The comic already states that "By default, you can't upload someone else's work". Currency is someone else's work. It isn't possible to fit all of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter in the allocated space. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of Ditsch logo

I am unsure whether this file [[4]] which contains the logo of the German pretzel bar chain Ditsch meets the threshold of originality and whether it can be uploaded to Commons. I know it would not meet it without the pretzel of which I am unsure whether it counts as a simple geometric shape. Tk420 (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it meets the threshold of originality. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

For the U.S., the pretzel graphic is pretty easily above the threshold. In Germany, it may well be OK, since they prefer logos to be protected by trademark rather than copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Images and pictures in article "Rock de España"

Hello. All the pictures uploaded in the article Rock en España (in spanish Wikipedia) are Public Domain. According to the Spanish Copyright Law, a mere picture (non-artistic image, as a concert or a snapshot) is Public Domain after 25 years of its creation. Article 128. Title V. Law from April 12 1996. All the images I uploaded are Spanish and they have been taken before 1990, therefore, they are Public Domain. I'd written the text (in spanish) of the Spanish Copyright Law. I repeat it:

Dominio público según la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual española 1/96 de 12 de abril. Título V, artículo 128 "De las meras fotografías"

Texto artículo 128, Título V de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual Española:

"Protección de las meras fotografías:

Artículo 128. De las meras fotografías Quien realice una fotografía u otra reproducción obtenida por procedimiento análogo a aquélla, cuando ni una ni otra tengan el carácter de obras protegidas en el Libro I, goza del derecho exclusivo de autorizar su reproducción, distribución y comunicación pública, en los mismos términos reconocidos en la presente Ley a los autores de obras fotográficas.

Este derecho tendrá una duración de veinticinco años computados desde el día 1 de enero del año siguiente a la fecha de realización de la fotografía o reproducción."

Estas fotografías no forman parte de un trabajo artístico, art-book, reportaje o elemento de diseño, tienen más de 25 años y son, por lo tanto, de dominio público.

I repeat: The Spanish Law says that all that pictures don't need permission because all of they are more of 25 years old and are Public Domain ( http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2014/11/05/pdfs/BOE-A-2014-11404.pdf and https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-1996-8930 ). The Spanish Law text is the own persmission. In fact, I can't upload that kind of pictures for the following sections in article (Spanish Rock in 90's, 2000's, etc) because the law doesn't allow me (the possible pictures of the bands of this era are shot after 1990, so they aren't older than 25). And I respect the law and the rules of Wikimedia Commons. But, I insist: Every picture I've uploaed in the article till now are shot before 1990).

Thanks a lot.--Stephen Strange (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Spanish copyright law, and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Spain doesn't mention it. However if you are correct, I don't think it would be sufficient because Commons requires that files are free in both the source country and the USA. For it to be public domain in the USA, the copyright would need to have expired in Spain before 1996 (to avoid Commons:URAA-restored copyrights) --ghouston (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've seen there are only two licenses for Spanish Public Domain in Wikimedia (both for texts and resolutions from the government). And the article in Wikimedia Commons about Spanish Law for Public Domain only contains the text of Title I within 70 years. But, I repeat: there another case. Title V, article 128 "De las meras fotografías" establishes that the copyright of simple photographs (just snapshots, no artistic works or similar) pass into Public Domain within 25 years.

You can see the text (in spanish) here ("Título V; artículo 128"): http://www.mcu.es/propint/files/LeyProp_Intelectual_mod172.pdf

I request that this license to be added in Wikimedia Commons. I think it's very important 'cause it will make possible the uploading of simple photographs (not artistic works, of course) shot before 1990 without the problems that now causes the absence of a standardized license.

Thanks a lot.--Stephen Strange (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is something similar for Italy: Template:PD-Italy. In that case, the term is 20 years and the cutoff for URAA is 1976. --ghouston (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Also the 25 year term in Spain is mentioned in Commons:Simple photographs. --ghouston (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Afaik the law changed on July 1 1995. Photos published under the old law are protected for 80 years following the authors death, the old law does protect all photographs, there is no requirement for creativity. I refere to the german U-Boot Urteil (OLG Hamburg 5 U 159/03 of 2004) where a simple photography published in Italy (copyright expired) has been reused in Germany (copyright expired) but gained copyright again because it was still protected in another EU member country, namely spain, under the old law. I further disagree that the definition of simple photographies (no selection of lightning, moment, object position, camera position, etc) are applicable to the files you uploaded. All files you uploded. Id say you abuse a sentence you found in the wrong law. --Martin H. (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not using the wrong law, my friend. The Spanish Copyright Law I've mentioned is dated in April, 12 1996. Modified (but not in this case) in 2014.--Stephen Strange (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

To me, the definition of simple photograph would be one that wasn't taken professionally. Using Italian law for the example, a photo of someone like Sophia Loren wouldn't be considered a simple photograph unless it clearly was a "family album" type. Her professional photos would not be covered by this portion of the law. You have a lot of Led Zeppelin photos in your uploads and they're from the UK. There's also no proof that those you've uploaded were taken in Spain to even start thinking about a Spanish "simple photographs" clause. These were all done professionally. We hope (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The most of the photos are shot in concerts and live playings. And the rest was published in fanzines (without copyright) during the 80's.--Stephen Strange (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed a lot of times. We've asked Spanish lawyers and the results can be seen in here. Just pictures taken by, for example, automatic photograph machines can be regarded as "meras fotografías". To sum up, for almost any picture, the 80-years pma period keeps on being valid. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 16:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC) PS: the Spanish law is much more strict than the Italian one (unfortunately, I must say)

As mentioned by Discasto, this is a difficult area. Some of what we know is listed at Commons:Simple photographs. Many European countries had such a clause in their copyright laws, but it is very unclear what happened to them when the EU directives went into place. Italy's law has specific examples of what is considered a simple photograph, and those examples did not change when they incorporated the EU directives, so we eventually chose to keep that license around (though it went through some rounds of deletion as well, and was controversial). One of the reasons it was controversial was Germany.... they also have a similar clause in their law, but there were some subsequent court cases that ruled that the EU directives changed the meaning to photographs taken by copiers, or perhaps X-rays, and that sort of thing -- i.e. virtually no photographs fall under that clause in Germany any more. Without some specific court guidance or other reason to assume that Spain is different, we would be conservative and assume the same there. If anyone is aware of any court cases that addressed that issue after the EU directives, that would be most welcome. Even if it does turn out to be OK, keep in mind that such photographs would need to be created before 1971 (and published without a copyright notice before 1989), otherwise their United States copyright would still be valid, as the URAA restored the U.S. copyright to any Spanish work which was still under copyright in Spain on January 1, 1996 so you have to go back 25 years from that date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. In fact, there is a definition of "simple photographs" in the Spanish Law. According with lawyers and jurist like Bercovitz Rodríguez-Cano, Fernando Echeverría, Erdozaín López, Javier Ramírez y Ramón Casas, "Simple photographs are those photographs obtained from series of automatic image reproduction for technical projects in which the aim is not the image, but provide support for a study, work or service, and have a limited interest in time, provided that they are incorporated into a work under the protection of the Spanish Copyright Law for other reasons". Most of pictures I've upload are shot in concerts an live shows by aficionados. Others are snapshots published in fanzines (not mainstream magazines); and in the fanzines, the copyright never was specified (or, simply, it didn't exist). And only in a case (Baron Rojo playing in Reading Festival in 1982) the photo was shot in a foreing country (UK, of course). However, I understand the wisdom of Wikimedia Commons. I don't want to harm it. Sorry for the inconveniences and thanks a lot for your answers.--Stephen Strange (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No mention of copyright in a magazine does not mean that there is no copyright. See Article 1 of the copyright law. The spanish copyright law grants some transitional provisions. The first provision (Acquired Rights) is that "Those amendments introduced by this Law that prejudice rights acquired under the former legislation shall not have retroactive effect subject to the following provisions." Therefore you have to consider the copyright granted by the previous legislation and that legislation does grant every photograph the same protection. --Martin H. (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Martin, but in most of the cases, the photographs of the fanzines (the Spanish fanzines from the 80's, I say) were not taken from the mainstream media. They were pictures taken by the own fanzinemakers. Amateur photographers and all... Anyway, I agree the Wikimedia Commons rules and, especially, your answers. Thanks a lot.--Stephen Strange (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just an aside: who makes the picture is not relevant. What is really relevant is what you have mentioned: the aim is not the image, but provide support for a study, work or service, and have a limited interest in time. In all the pictures you've uploaded is just the opposite. They have a definite interest in time. Otherwise, they would be useless in commons. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 20:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what "obtained from series of automatic image reproduction for technical projects" means but even given that, I'm not sure how concert photos would fall under that -- in this case, the aim certainly is the image itself. Works here need to be free to use whatever the "aim" is. That definition also seems to reference automated or mechanical reproduction, which a photographic snapshot is not. We do try to follow the law, both for the country of origin (which is the country of first publication, not necessarily where a photo was taken), and the U.S., since the Foundation is subject to U.S. law. Even if they were deemed "simple", any photograph taken 1976 or later would have still been protected in Spain in 1996, which means the U.S. copyright was restored and will still be valid for many decades (at least 70pma or 95 years from publication, depending on when it was published and possibly if it was a work for hire), and we would not be able to host it. But if we can get clarification on what "simple photographs" mean, that would help. And as mentioned, the EU directives were crafted such that any existing terms were not shortened, so if there were longer terms under the previous law might still be in force. I see the law of 1987 had a 20-year term for such photographs (article 118), though I'm not sure I see a distinction at all in the 1879 law (did all photographs get rights or were they not protected at all?). Were there any Spanish court cases on the issue after 1987, and especially after 1996? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

permission tag needed

Please someone could check if the current tag in this File:Zinken Hopp og Lennart Aavatsmark 1964.jpg is correct? thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ai, it is released under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0. that is not suitable for Commons. You might check if the picture is old enough for the public domain, or better, discuss with that museum to release their pictures under CC-BY-SA or CC-BY --Hannolans (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks Hannolans.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

photos ~1930 from Germany

I would like to upload two photos taken in Germany around 1930. Both are credited, and one of them is also "copyright USA". Is it permitted to upload, and under which license tag? Thanks!איתן טל -Etan J. Tal (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If they were first published in Germany, they are almost certainly still under copyright in either Germany or the U.S. If they were first published in the U.S., it could be different, as there were some rules to follow. So... were the authors German, or American? Do we have any idea when and where it was first published? You can use the Commons:Hirtle chart to see if something is public domain in the U.S. Copyright can last an extremely long time, and if they are not public domain, then they cannot be uploaded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind help - איתן טל -Etan J. Tal (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

National Transportation Safety Board

Hi all, I recently deleted File:Metro North accident at Valhalla, NY - 3.jpg because it is sourced to [5] where it is posted under a NC license. Given that the NTSB is a US government agency, does that then make this file and any other file in this flickr stream PD? -FASTILY 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If it was taken by an NTSB employee, then yes. I would assume basically all of those are OK. Some USGov Flickr streams stick the NC tag on there presumably for personality rights reasons but from a pure copyright perspective they are PD in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why national symbols are copyrighted?

I have always wanted to know why national symbols are copyrighted?, since they are in public display, are of common use and they have no author in the common meaning of the word, when somebody design a flag or coat of arm for a national or subnational entity they release their rights to that state. I could understand if the rights are about who draw a flag? for instance: we are not allowed to copy and paste flags and coats of arms from any website. I understand that. On the other hand the flags and coats of arms drawn by wikipedia users keep being erased by librarians in regarding of licenses and I don't understand why?. Why if I draw my own flag do I need a license? Which license do I need? How can I prevent the flag from being erased? (They are erased without question) By the way, I don't post flags or coats on commons anymore, I just want to know why they are erased since I always find articles in wikipedia about countries, states, municipalities, provinces, cities, parishes, counties without flag or coat because somebody erased it because of a license.Andrew Mc Andrew (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Main_Page)

From your description, no I don't think such items should be deleted, if you drew them yourself. See Commons:Coats of arms. It is possible that if you drew a version which is too close to an existing graphical version which is copyrighted (i.e. it duplicates the copyrightable expression found in that rendition), it could still be a derivative work of that copyrighted rendition, and therefore a problem. But, there can also be a misunderstanding from editors who assume that any rendition is a derivative work of the country/municipality/etc., which is generally not the case. Do you have any examples you can point to? It's possible works were deleted for other reasons I'm not anticipating. If you think a work was deleted incorrectly, you can post a request to Commons:Undeletion requests. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an example File:Bandera_del_Estado_Guárico.PNG, maybe not the best one, but it keeps happening. This is the flag of one of Venezuela's states, I wonder why it was erased?.Andrew Mc Andrew (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I was checking this one, its a svg conversion so, it is the work of Unukalhai, he finds the symbols and make the effort to draw them into .svg format, its a shame it was deleted for no reason and maybe this made him quit, this is my strongest argument, this was clearly an own work from this user, so drawing and uploading the symbols seems to be almost poinless. Andrew Mc Andrew (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If something is marked "own work" but already exists on the web, that puts "own work" in doubt. That particular image is a low-resolution PNG of an image which is all over the web, if I'm seeing the image right with Google cache. It is not "own work" to take an image off the web (even if changing a color) and upload it. However, one of the original sources appears to be File:Flag of Guarico State.svg, which was deleted for "no source", so that may not have been marked as "own work". I'm not sure when that file was uploaded; the log doesn't have a date so it may have been a long time ago. Sometimes a page might be vandalized, then a page gets marked for deletion, and the admins may not notice, or maybe it was uploaded long enough that some of our current standards were not in place. It's possible that original SVG was deleted in error, but I can't see the deleted file, so I'm not sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Another example Escudo Girardot Aragua.PNG, this file was modified from another from the web, if nobody can modify a file so no symbols can exists on Wikipedia, I'm not defending the copy and paste, but even the modified ones are deleted. Andrew Mc Andrew (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If the modified version still contains copyrightable expression from the original, then it is a Commons:derivative work, which is where additional expression is added to underlying work, and the distribution is therefore still controlled by the copyright of the underlying work. That is the way copyright law works, for better or worse. Versions need to be modified such that all of the copyrightable content from the original is removed -- usually that is removal of all the outlines, etc., specific to the copyrighted version. If a file still contains copyrighted material from web versions, that is a legitimate reason for deletion. It's not enough to just modify something a little. That is the reason claimed for the image you mention. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Then is a very tricky task, if I modify a flag or coat and the editor considers is not different enought to another one found on the web the file is erased. On the other hand, if I change the color chade, aspect ratio and file size is not the same symbol (as symbols specially flags have color chade and aspect ratio fixed as part of its description). How much is enought is on the editor's criteria, so neither I can't lose time uploading modified symbols nor I can recomend anybody to do it, its a dead end, now is clear why so many articles about countries and subnational entities are whihout a flag. That's what I wanted to know.Andrew Mc Andrew (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's a tricky task, but we can't escape copyright law. The best bet is to find a representation old enough to be public domain, and modify that, or draw something from scratch. Changing the color shade and aspect ratio aren't really copyrightable changes even, so that amounts more to a straight copy. If the design of a flag is completely spelled out in a specification, then there's really nothing copyrightable at all in the first place. But if there is some creative leeway, such as a complex figure in a coat of arms, then you need to be more careful about drawing it yourself. For SVGs, you can often find elements of the primary design in other licensed or PD SVGs here, then combine them for yours. There is unfortunately no easy way around getting a good idea of what is copyrighted and what is not, and *not* copying copyrighted expression when making emblems etc. for Wikimedia sites. It can be frustrating, but that is what being a "free" encyclopedia means -- just like Wikipedia article authors cannot copy large chunks of copyrighted text from somewhere else, even if they make slight changes. It's the exact same principle with images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Creating a free version of an architectural illustration

I'd like to get recommendations from the community for the best approach to take in creating a free architectural illustration of a historically significant bridge in Turkey. The bridge in question in the Old Tigris Bridge in Hasankeyf, Turkey. It was built in the 12th century, so the work itself is not under copyright. There are various photos on Commons, but careful elevation and plan drawings would be useful additions to the English Wikipedia article (and presumably any others that get created). The bridge itself is in a remote location and about to be submerged under a reservoir. As the remaining components stand in a major river, obtaining a photo that could be perspective corrected as a basis for an elevation drawing would be a fairly difficult task.

Alternatively, there are published illustrations in art history books and journals. For example, see Figure 15 (1) on page 59 of Michael Meinecke's Patterns of Stylistic Changes in Islamic Architecture. These are likely better representations of the bridge than something traced from a perspective-corrected photo.

The published illustrations appear to be based on Figure 59 of Albert Gabriel's 1940 book Voyages archéologiques dans la Turquie orientale. (For example, the version in Meinecke's book says it is "after Gabriel [1940]".) Gabriel visited the site along with Jean Sauvaget in 1932, but it seems the drawing was first published in 1940. I have not yet seen a copy of the book, so I don't know whether Gabriel, Sauvaget or someone else is credited as the artist. Gabriel died in 1972. Sauvaget died in 1950. My understanding of copyright in France is that it extends for 70 years after the death of the work's creator. I assume that French law would regard modern elevation and plan drawings of an old bridge to be original works, especially as they include a conjectured reconstruction of the original structure. So, we might assume that the drawings in Gabriel's book are under copyright until 2042 (or 2020 if Sauvaget drew them).

Is there any way that one of these existing drawings could be used as a basis for a new freely licensed drawing, so long as the artist avoided copying the original in specific ways? Or is the only option to create an entirely new drawing from free photographic sources? Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There really is no safe way to use the modern elevation and plan drawings as the basis for a new work unless you can get a licence from whoever currently owns the copyright (and as you indicate there will indeed be copyright, even in drawings that are representative of an old existing structure). Free sources are your only way to go, even if you have to do a bit of conjecturing yourself as a result. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt that I could get a license. Let's say I created my own drawing from scratch, using free sources. Gabriel's book includes a conjectured reconstruction of the original bridge. That information would appear to be something I can report accurately in my own words in the Wikipedia article. Is there any way I can depict that information in my drawing? Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

AIUI what you can draw from a verbal description alone, to the extent you can keep any protected depiction you’ve seen out of your mind while doing so, is your own work: such content, abstracted from the manner of its presentation, is not subject to copyright. (You should still cite the source of the information, and for WP purposes be careful to avoid “original research” as well. But that concerns suitability for an article, not so much eligibility for hosting here.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

URAA on WWII photos of Nazi extermination camps

Hi, sorry if this has already come up, but before I use these images I just wanted to check that they are licensed OK on Commons. See here: Commons:Village_pump#Auschwitz_Album and it's about the images here Category:Auschwitz_Album Thanks, Jane023 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Some context: pictures are labeled PD at the website of Yad Vashem (owner of the collection, http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/en-us/97836-container.html), and labeled as PD at the United States Holocaust Museum (http://digitalassets.ushmm.org/photoarchives/result.aspx?folderid=21575916). But not explained why. I choose PD-EU-anonymous. --Hannolans (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why? The photographers are clearly named. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

good point. On wikipedia is written:"The identity of the photographer has never been determined. They may have been taken by either Ernst Hoffmann or Bernhard Walter, two SS men responsible for fingerprinting and taking photo IDs of those prisoners who were not selected for extermination.", so I wrote as author "anonymous, possibly SS officers Ernst Hoffmann or Bernhard Walter".

so author: SS ? if SS as author what would you propose instead. PD-OLD ? --Hannolans (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A list of potential authors that only includes two names seems like stretching the definition of "anonymous" a bit, but I suppose it's a possible interpretation. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

And of course, one of the potential authors claimed in 1963 he did not take them,[6] even though one of the prisoners there was pretty sure he had. The other potential author went missing after the war apparently. This is one of those situations where the author would probably rather disown any copyrights (or not admit to having them in the first place). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reactions here! Shouldn't we have some sort of license specifically for media taken by SS? Clearly the SS archives are officially "owned" by the German government, but the current German government would never admit that protection of copyrights of SS officers is worth defending. I suppose there are privacy issues for "portrait rights" of descendants of SS officers in such media, but surely if the subjects are camp prisoners no one could object? I am thinking along the lines of the risk of publishing on Wikipedia. No court case could be won that is defending the rights of SS photographers. I think of it as being the same thing as art forgers. Images of art forgeries by art forgers who are forging PD works can also be PD, since they will be able to claim copyright of their forgeries, but any *defense* of such copyright would be thrown out in court. Jane023 (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, interesting in this case is that SS was probably not part of the German government, it was part of the nazi-party NDSAP. SS and NDSAP became officially a criminal and illegal organisation since 1945. Probably we need a label for PD-criminal organisation ? Who will get the authorship of a criminal organisation, will it become de facto PD? Or the owner of the collection, or the government? --Hannolans (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Another viewpoint: "The Allies confiscated [..] German patents, copyrights and trademarks." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reparations_for_World_War_II). Might this also have included copyright of pictures and movies made by the German government and SS? If so, the authorship of this pictures could be the Russian government as they liberated Auschwitz, or the governments of the Allies. --Hannolans (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a side note: it doesnt matter if the author is a government employee or not. There is no copyright transfer in germany, only by inheritance. The author of a work is the copyright holder. There are no Pictures or movies made by the German government and the SS. --Martin H. (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't understand this at first as in my country a institutions have the copyright if made by an employee, but that is not the case for German institutions? So SS or the government don't own copyright of their pictures? --Hannolans (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, there are no such provisions in Germany. Said institutions most likely have usage rights transferred by contract, but copyright remains with the author, even if he is an employee and made the work in the course of his duties. --Rosenzweig τ 19:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It is still not clear to me why the German government can't be the copyright holder of movies. This is what I read on https://www.filmothek.bundesarchiv.de/contents : "The newsreels and the Federal Press Office commissions between 1945 and 2004 are considered official historical records, since they were produced by a federally owned company, the Deutsche Wochenschau GmbH, and partially commissioned by the Federal Press Office, a federal agency. Thus the Federal Republic of Germany owns the copyrights." --Hannolans (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

They may own exclusive usage rights which were transferred by contracts. Certainly not copyrights (Urheberrechte), those remain with the author in Germany. There are some rather esoteric exceptions to this in old versions of German copyright law, but they refer to editors of printed matters like books, not to movies or single photographs not from said books. --Rosenzweig τ 19:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Still confused. Bundesarchiv writes that the government 'owns the copyright' as it is produced by a governmental owned company, but how is that not true? What are the implications if it are usage rights only and not copyright? Is the Bundesarchiv allowed to publish such materials wih a license of their choice so that we can re-use it ?--Hannolans (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Allies may have confiscated a lot, but that doesn't change the copyright situation in Germany. The US e. g. considers the photographs of Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler's favorite photographer, to be in the PD, but German law doesn't care about that, so Hoffmann's photos are still protected in Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 00:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that info about Hoffmann, but does that mean that those picture can or cannot reside on Commons? Also, it is still unclear to me whether these specific pictures released by Yad Vashem can reside on Commons. Thanks, Jane023 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Media files can principally reside on Commons if they are free both in the US and their country of origin. If German works are not (yet) free in Germany, they cannot reside on Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 19:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The case Hoffman is very interesting, although a different situation. In this case is work of an artist and not of the government nor SS. Already during the War Hoffman got royalities of his pictures. The authorship of Hoffman seemed transfered to the American businessman Price, but the US gov disputes his claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_v._United_States I am also wondering what this mean: "The Allies confiscated [..] German patents, copyrights and trademarks." What copyrights are confiscated? Is there any example of confiscated copyright or is this sentence not true? Patents seems to be published as PD by the US governement to be used by the American industry. If copyrights were confiscated, were they returned to the German government later on? --Hannolans (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Those "confiscations" are relevant for US law only, German law never acknowledged them. --Rosenzweig τ 19:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And for other countries? What about pictures made by the SS in the Netherlands and were confiscated by the Dutch? --Hannolans (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The copyright status in other countries depends on the laws of those countries. Nazi works are a bit messy. For example, under German law, all of Hitler's possessions, including the copyright to Mein Kampf, were confiscated by the German government (and the copyright later ended up being held by Bavaria). On the other hand, Swedish law does not permit confiscation of copyright, and the German government thus never confiscated anything in Sweden, so the copyright holder in Sweden is not the same as the copyright holder in Germany (see NJA 1998 p. 838). I'd assume that the copyright still rests with Hitler's heirs in Sweden. In the United States, I believe that the copyright to Mein Kampf is held by someone else (i.e. neither by Hitler's heir nor by Bavaria). As identifying the copyright holder can be a bit complex, you need to be extra careful when using Nazi works as a licence only is valid in countries where the licensor is the copyright holder. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, The US copyrights to Mein Kampf are owned by the publishing company Houghton Mifflin. Revent (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Google Cultural Institute has the pictures published, also the backside of a photo: https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/birkenau-poland-a-selection-on-the-platform-27-05-1944/ggGqSKcjst_fig photo is with a Tschechic copyright notice on the backside. Strange. Anyway, it doesn't matter for the EU situation as it is all PD. About the US situation and confiscated copyrights of World War II pictures, the following discussion might be relevant, also in relation to URAA (note that is discussion took place in 2007, before the 70 years deadline): Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_9#Imperial_War_Museum_Licensing --Hannolans (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting - I love that image of the back of the photo! In Haarlem we had an exhibition of "well-travelled photographs from Spaarnestad Photo" just before they were transferred to the Hague, and an old iconic image of Ghandi had a backside with lots of stamps like that. The copyright stamp is historically interesting but probably no longer valid. After reading through a bunch of interesting comments here: Commons:URAA-restored copyrights I think we should just consider this all PD until further notice under the "tolerance initiative" of the WMF statement. We should not delete under URAA-extension falling images until we know for sure, rather than "delete until uploader has proven PD when we have doubts". Jane023 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion only shows that a lot of people confuse US copyright with that of other nations. This is about German Urheberrecht, and as Martin H. has already stated above, there is no concept like "work for hire" or some sort of state copyright (for works of state employees made in the course of their duties). Copyright rests with the author or his heirs, for 70 years after the death of the author. Not after publication or creation. That the owner of prints of photographs (in this case: Yad Vashem) declares those images to be "PD" is meaningless, they have no authorization to do so unless they explicitely acquired exclusive usage rights to the photos along with the prints. Which would have to be thoroughly documented to be acceptable. Alternatively you'd have to prove convincingly a) the identity of the photographer b) that he is dead for at least 70 years, which as of 2015 means he died no later than 1944. --Rosenzweig τ 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that might be true for the German wikipedia, as named in the PD-EU-anonymous license. But the US situation is relevant as we dont know which tag we should use for the US. As USHMM describes them as PD, that is not enought.

About the country of origin for Commons. That is ambigitous. We can follow the line that the country of origin is Germany as it is made by the SS, although the author is unknown, or that it is made in Poland by an unknown author, hence Poland is the country of origin. I propose that we assume Poland as the country of origin, so these pictures can stay published on Commons, with PD-EU-anonymous. For anonymous pictures made in Germany, it will be another situation, in which I'm very interested in this --Hannolans (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Where the photograph was taken is irrelevant. It is the country of first publication which matters. If you claim that Poland is the country of origin, then you need to show that the photograph was first published in Poland. If there is no publication data available, I'd assume that we have to assume the worst case and treat Germany as the country of first publication of Nazi photographs. I don't know whether "Poland" means "Poland as of today" or "Poland as of WWII". The borders were changed significantly after the war. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have sent a mail to Yad Vashem, probably they know more. --Hannolans (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Yad Vashem can post in Israel, simply because no one in their right mind would prosecute for copyright infringement. Considering the situation here, I am inclined to agree that the same holds. Even if those photographers were identified as being alive after 1944, their copyrights would be non-defendable in any court, due to the Nazi crimes documented by them. Jane023 (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In Israel, the copyright term for photographs is limited to 50 years from creation, if the photograph was taken before 25 May 2008 (see {{PD-Israel}}). Thus, all photographs taken during WWII are in the public domain in Israel. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

See a related discussion at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#WWII_period_music_score. Jee 10:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Canon camera image under public domain. why?

When i saw File:EOS5D-img 0020-a.jpg(this) image under the licence of public domain, i get cofussed. Because the Cannon is a Trademark. Is in it? Will anyone please, explain?--Info-farmer (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See Commons:Non-copyright restrictions and this section of Commons:Derivative works. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, A camera is an utilitarian object, and therefore does not get any copyright in itself. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. But i want to read more about utilitarian object. Guide me.--Info-farmer (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Info-farmer, in addition to the link fellow LX gave above, we also have Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects. --El Grafo (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks indeed all of you. Bye!--Info-farmer (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issue PD-USGov-Military-NGA for File:Nm-37-11-voroshilovgrad-soviet union.pdf

I uploaded a Ukraine map from the DoD, I think it is a ((PD-USGov-Military-NGA)) map but I am not sure because it doesn't have the "No copyright claimed under title 17 U.S.C". Can any one say whether the map is freee?. --Keysanger 23:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct licensing. Joint Operations Graphics (as well as ONCs) are products of the Defense Mapping Agency and it's successors, and (generally) in the public domain. There are a few exceptions that are products of the UK government, but this one is fine. The ones that are from the UK are clearly marked. Revent (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, you should use {{PCL}} in the 'source' field for maps from the Perry-Casteneda Library. Among other things, using it allows for the 'mass' modification of links (via the template) if they change their URL schema. Revent (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Template for illegal documents

Hi,

Could we make a template showing that illegal documents are in the public domain, because a copyright cannot be claimed? This would include, among others, counterfeit money/stamps, virus, (allegedly) fake documents, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons why a document might be illegal here or there. How sure are you that illegal (where? when?) is always public domain? –Be..anyone (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not always, but based on the same rational as {{Non-free graffiti}}, where the author obviously cannot claim a copyright. We can restrict this template to these cases. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The rationale is that "an author might be denied any copyright relief based on an illegal act". I'm not sure that there's any basis in law for invalidating a copyright in that way. In some countries a court may however try to seize any royalty payments arising from an illegal work. --ghouston (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The rationale isn't that the court would invalidate a copyright, but that the author cannot claim it, either because he would be in jail immediately, or because it would prove that the document is fake. Even if the author of an allegedly fake banknote/stamp/book could evade jail, he could not claim that he is the author, as it would defeat the purpose of the creation of the document in the first place. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about the statement on the graffiti template. A fake is a copy of something else and so may not have enough originality for a copyright claim. Also many crimes are subject to a statute of limitations, while copyright lasts for more than a lifetime. Anyone making copyright claims would still need decent evidence that they are the true author however. --ghouston (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A template can't be created since the template would be incorrect. An author can always use his copyright, but in some cases, he might be punished for the illegal acts if he sues a copyright violator. The copyright holder then needs to determine whether he would gain more from suing the copyright violator than he would lose by being punished for his illegal acts.

Additionally, under Swedish law, the term of prescription for violation of copyright is ten years. This means that I can still sue anyone who violated my copyright on 3 February 2005 or later. Let's say that I created a work on 1 January 2005 and that, by doing this, I committed a crime. Let's say that this illegal act has a term of prescription of ten years and that someone violated the copyright to my work on 1 January 2006. As it is now past 1 January 2015, I can no longer be punished for my illegal act, but I still have almost a whole year left to sue the person who violated my copyright in 2006, provided that I collected evidence of the copyright violation back in 2006, which I may have kept secret until now. It is now perfectly safe for me to enforce my copyright.

Under Swedish law, there is no prescription for murders committed on or after 1 July 1985, and the term of prescription for my crime might expire after the term of prescription for the copyright violation. However, copyright expires 70 years after my death, and it will always be safe for my heirs to sue any copyright violators after I have died. My heirs have not commited any crime, so they will be safe.

Also, let's say that I already have been punished for my crime (by being fined or sent to prison or whatever). In that case, I can't be punished a second time, so it is perfectly safe to sue whoever I want. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting argument. However practically it rarely happens that way... Yann (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Practically?" Perhaps. But the statute of limitations argument would seem to place such works squarely within the COM:PRP, which doesn't acknowledge practicality. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a scientific paper discussing this issue: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2503791 --Hannolans (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is also criminal law to consider. If I find evidence that someone has violated the copyright to a work, then I can report that person to the police, and the copyright violator may end up in prison. It doesn't matter if I am the copyright holder or not, so the violator could be punished without identifying the copyright holder. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought that only the copyright owner could do that. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not under Swedish law, at least. Under Swedish law, the copyright violator can be punished (for example sent to prison) if you can show that the copyright violator beyond reasonable doubt violated the copyright intentionally or with gross neglect. It may be difficult to prove this if the copyright holder isn't co-operating, but it can be done. In addition to punishment under criminal law, the copyright holder can request 'reasonable compensation' from the copyright violator. I'm not sure if the copyright violator can be required to pay 'reasonable compensation' if the copyright holder isn't involved in the procedure in some way. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

FoP in China

Hi all, I've just opened a deletion request. I have to admit that I didn't know the details of FoP in China (it seems to be more free than other countries) but I have a specific issue with the Chinese IPR law. I'll quote the relevant articles:

... a work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon:

(10) copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place;

The current interpretation is that FoP is valid in China, even if a copyrighted element is on display in an outdoor public place regardless of being permanent or not, just but properly attributing the copyrighted work in each photo's data file. However, an interpretation stating that the picture has to be attributed every time it's used seems to be also valid. Can we guarantee that the first (attribution in the picture's data file) and not the second interpretation (attribution every time the picture is used) is the valid one? --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 22:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between the two cases? In general you have to give attribution every time the picture is used (this is true of CC-BY etc. licenses as well). I would imagine the FoP requirement is somewhat mitigated if the artist is not mentioned on the object in question, though in general moral rights requires attribution most all of the time anyways, if it's specifically called out in the FoP provision or not. For Wikimedia sites, we think that having the license / attribution / etc. on the image page is enough for any usages on those sites, provided you can get to the file page by clicking on it. If using it off-Wikimedia, you would probably need to provide the attribution somewhere else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The difference IMHO is that a CC-BY is much more vague (If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material.) that the conditions in the Chinese law (a work may be exploited [...] provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned). That is, "to provide" can be considered fulfilled by what you've mentioned, but "to mention" whenever a work is "exploited", seems to be much more strict (a work is "exploited" when used in a wikipedia article; according to the Chinese law, the author's name must be mentioned when using a picture in a wikipedia article, and that's much more than a regular CC-BY attribution clause). --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 00:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The requirement to mention the CC-BY license is a pretty hard one, with at least as much teeth as the Chinese law (and probably more). The other stuff may or may not be provided with the original, which is where the vagueness lies. To me, naming the author in the Chinese law is more part of moral rights, and pretty similar. It really shouldn't be a reason for deletion -- if we find the author, then name them on the image page -- that is one click away. For something like the Olympic mascot, just identifying it is probably enough, unless the Olympic committee was making the artist's name known. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

See the Category:Haibao header. The required data are provided, thanks to Johndhackensacker3d. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As a minimum, the information must be provided in EACH picture file. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 16:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Tous les fichiers de la catégorie Category:Haibao sont maintenant {{FoP-China}} sauf un, pour que Dicasto ne soit pas entièrement frustré de la joie d'avoir détruit le travail d'un autre contributeur pour une bonne raison. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL, cree el ladrón que todos son de su condición :-P --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 14:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

cc-by-sa film/movie edge case

I have a film that was licensed under cc-by-sa but it includes several shots of promotional materials from the 70s (more than de minimis) that would still fall under copyright for any stills taken in that sequence. Would that file still be eligible for Commons? For enwp? czar ⨹ 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: No, the film would be a derivative work and not allowed. However, if they were originally published in the United States before 1978 without a copyright notice, they would be in the public domain (English Wikipedia's page about U.S. copyright terms). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Photos from http://jjoggomi.tistory.com/

Some photos of Kim Tae-yeon from http://jjoggomi.tistory.com/ were uploaded to Commons. They passed the license review, however, I noticed a sentence in Korean at the end on the url given as source (http://jjoggomi.tistory.com/564). The sentence is 이상한 합성, 상업적, 악의적으로 사용하지 말아주세요, which seems to mean "don't use for commercial purposes". Could someone confirm this? If it's true, the photos should be deleted. Thanks. --Chiyako92 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In the latest post (http://jjoggomi.tistory.com/588), the auhor has expanded the sentence with an English translation that says "Do not Collage & Commercial & Malicious!". It's a bit cryptic, but could it be interpreted like a denial of permission of using the photos for commercial purposes? --Chiyako92 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed. "Commercial use, malicious use, weird derivate work prohibited". COM:PCP applies. — Revi 14:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

58 usage according to Special:LinkSearch. — Revi 14:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: Were the photos released under a "commercial use allowed" license which was later changed to prohibit commercial use? Or were the photos only released under a "no commercial use allowed" license to begin with? From what one understands, in the case of the former, free content licenses are irrevocable. --Gazebo (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like at the moment user uploaded the image, he also put "Commercial use, malicious use, weird derivate work prohibited" included in the text. Tistory.com's CCL system does not give any information about CCL in their system (which should be fixed) so user may have licensed the file in CCL without knowing the effect of the licensing. Therefore I believe we should apply COM:PCP and delete the files. — Revi 08:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the files violated any copyright restriction. I saw the Common creative tags and thought it should be okay to be uploaded. If it violates the rules, then please delete. I only recently started uploaded some pictures, these pictures are more complicated than I thought. Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a question, if the website says the pictures are copyrighted, but let's say we get the permission from the owners themselves that certain pictures can be uploaded. Would that still be okay? Still new to this process, so I just want to understand the rules better. Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be absolutely fine. Images can be individually licensed but it has to be an acceptable license. Take your time with understanding the system because there is no rush i.e. it doesn't really matter if a particular image is uploaded today, tomorrow or in six months as long as the requirements are met. Don't hesitate to ask as many questions as necessary, even if they seem relatively simple concepts, because everyone on this website was a newbie at some point. Green Giant (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually contacted the owner of the pictures on their twitter and got the permission. What should I put on here that I actually got the permission when I upload a picture?--TerryAlex (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

From what one understands, the copyright holder for the pictures should be directed to send a confirmation of permission identifying the images which they are licensing under CC to OTRS. Note that certain specific information needs to be included when confirming permission. Once this has been done, it may be useful to open an undeletion request for the following images; the request should mention that OTRS confirmation was supplied by the copyright holder of the images.

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sunny (singer)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kwon Yuri
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jessica Jung towards the KBS Music Bank in July 2013.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kim Tae-Yeon in 2015
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kim Tae-Yeon in 2014
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Girls' Generation in July 2014.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hyoyeon in October 2012.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jessica in October 2012.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tiffany in October 2012.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yoona in October 2012.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seohyun in October 2012.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sooyoung in October 2012.jpg

--Gazebo (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I was asked for help on my talk page, and will respond to ticket as soon as ticket arrives (or other agent will... anyway.) — regards, Revi 07:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Historic Congressional Web pages

I posted this to w:WP:Media copyright questions and recieved no response:

On w:Talk:Ted Kennedy (<- please review) the question of ownership and licensing for a set of screenshots of original Congressional pages has been raised. It is my understanding that these would fall under public domain as they are produced for official business by an agent under Federal employ. There is also some uncertainty as to the images being produced by a contractor and if these also fall into PD status (it is my understanding they do). However, the images are also wrapped in the border of a browser, which happens to be w:Netscape Navigator, and these may or may not fall under w:Mozilla Public License or w:Netscape Public License (which could be cropped out if they do not).

The images in question are below.

• First Congressional Web site ever (Ted Kennedy)
• Description page for first image, contains commentary from uploader
• A later revision of Kennedy's page hosted on senate.gov servers (certainly PD)
• Flickr album containing other historic screenshots of early Senate Web sites from the era

I don't really care if the images end up in the article but, I would like to be able to upload them to Commons and thus, am seeking guidance on their status. Namaste. --dsprc (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As of now, the information at COM:Screenshots says that screenshots that show the user interface of proprietary Web browsers (from what one understands, the Netscape Navigator and Mosaic browsers, among others, were proprietary software) are not accepted on Commons. As to whether a screenshot of freely-licensed or uncopyrighted content as rendered in a proprietary Web browser would be acceptable if the image is cropped to show only the page content itself, the information at COM:Screenshots is not totally clear, though it does not seem impossible that a display of content as rendered by a proprietary Web browser could be a derivative work of the Web browser copyright even if the content itself is freely licensed or uncopyrighted, given that multiple Web browsers can have their own quirks and differences in how they render the same HTML/XML/etc. For generating a free screenshot of a Web browser, the page does direct users to use a freely licensed browser and to make sure that no copyrighted elements of proprietary software (including copyrighted elements of a proprietary operating system) are shown. If a Web page and all its content are freely licensed or uncopyrighted, one possible option might be to display the content of the page in a freely licensed browser. --Gazebo (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Freely licensed image containing a non-free image?

Hello- I have just uploaded File:On-the-verge-poster-2015.jpg, which is an image most created by Kyle Cassidy, a photographer who has been good enough to send me and other Wikimedians a number of images under free licenses. This image contains a small part (namely, the alligator) which belongs to Matt Field, a professional photographer. Is this a problem? J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Though it is not totally clear, treating the alligator photo as allowable on the basis of de minimis seems marginal, given the nature of the poster and the way that the alligator photo was purposely incorporated into the poster. Any thoughts from others? --Gazebo (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Dizionario infernale by Francesco Piqué

Dizionario infernale by Francesco Piqué, an adaptation of Collin de Plancy's Dictionnaire infernal, it was published in 1870, so definitely PD-US, but Piqué's date of death is not known. It's largely improbable that he was still alive in 1945, 75 years after the book was published, is it enough to host the book here? --Nonexyst (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The British Library puts the first book of his they know about as 1870, which assuming that was when he was 20 makes him a mere 95 in 1945. I'll give you unlikely, but not improbable; about 1% of people at birth survive to 95.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are under 1%, I think it's improbable ;-) Plus, I think life expectancy was lower then, and that is also assuming he published his first book at age 20, which is also rare (though not impossible). According to Google translate, the last section of the book (written by the author in the first person) says "Here I come to the end of the long and arduous journey"... doesn't exactly sound like a 20-year-old. I'd say the odds are way, way less than 1%, and I would not nominate for deletion if it were uploaded. There may be some folks here who disagree, but to me that would be a pretty extreme deletion case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Life expectancy may have been lower then, but not as much for adults as one would think, and that 1% is already rounded down significantly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the original book was first published in 1818, and the author died in 1881. And for the adaptation, I think that Carl is right. Yann (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Reproductions of engravings from 1797/8

Wikipedia/Wikimedia has an example of each of the 12 engravings of the female allegorical figures for the French Republican Calendar, but these are taken from different print runs, so have a varied appearence, particularly in their colouring: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:French_Republican_Calendar

I've found a very beautiful set with a consistent style (but no source or copyright information) on the web here: http://cghaubiere.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/calendrier-republicain.html

Given the subject matter, the sources are clearly out of copyright (the artist was Louis Lafitte (1770-1828), and the engraver Salvatore Tresca (1750?-1815), and the works themselves are dated before 1800).

What are the specific questions that I need to ask the owner of that page, and what subsequent actions must they take? Given that I am going to have to ask in French, I'd like to be sure that I get it right! Scarabocchio (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah .. I see that some of the uploaded pictures in Commons are already from that site, eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Germinal_commence_le_21_ou_22_mars.jpg I'll take the missing ones to complete the set. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hilma af Klint

In the list of authors now in public domain I found Hilma af Klint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_in_public_domain) I transfered a work of her from enwiki to Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hilma_af_Klint_Svanen.jpg (More art work: http://www.wikiart.org/en/hilma-af-klint). It was painted in 1915, she died in 1944, Sweden. It seems she requested her abstract work should not be published 20 years after her death (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilma_af_Klint) How PD and under which license is this work in the US? --Hannolans (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hannolans: The U.S.'s current copyright term is also 70 years after author's death, so the EU tag applies for the U.S. as well. I've removed the extra U.S. tag ({{PD-US-no notice}}), because that only applies to first publication in the U.S. Anon124 (+2) (✉ ⚒) 20:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The US's current copyright term is not life+70 in any really meaningful sense. It basically only applies works first published after 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

From a quick glance at the text of the Swedish law on WIPO, there is no special allowance for works published posthumously... the term is based solely on the date of the author's death. Revent (talk)

From what one understands, if the painting is from Sweden, then it would have had to have been published before 1923 (which could likely be the case if it was painted in 1915) or have been published in noncompliance with US formalities and out of copyright in Sweden by 1996 (to avoid being restored to copyright in the US under the URAA) to be out of copyright in the US. (There is also this Wikilegal report on the Twin Books v. Walt Disney ruling and its possible impact on foreign works that were published in noncompliance with US formalities.) Assuming that the painting was published before 1923 for the purposes of US copyright, would the licensing tag {{PD-old-auto-1923 |deathyear=1944}} be more useful than {{PD-old-70}}? --Gazebo (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's better to use an autocalculating license template whenever you can (even in cases where it seems a bit 'silly', since in some places the term can be much longer than 70 years), though in this case the '1923' doesn't seem to apply since the painting was apparently not shown publicly until much later. Personally, I would suggest using {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1944}} (without the '1923'), which will apply 'PD-old-70' for now. The URAA is a 'possible' concern for any Swedish work whose author died in 1926 or later, though for a work of art it would be hard to track down the kind of details needed for a 'well-founded' argument that it applies, and consensus seems to be to keep 'possible' URAA works unless we have those kinds of details. I did check that her name does not appear in any of the 'Notice of Intent to Enforce' lists. Revent (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, those paintings weren't published or exhibited, only after 20 years after 1944. Thanks for checking the notice lists. --Hannolans (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Found the exhibition list. Part of the work seems first exhibited in Los Angeles, in 1986, same or other works a year later in Europe: http://www.hilmaafklint.se/Utstallningar.html

Does that have implications? Shall I contact Stiftelsen Hilma af Klints Verk? --Hannolans (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. term is going to be very problematic here, most likely. If they were published outside the U.S. before 1978, the URAA would restore them to a term of 95 years from publication, so only ones known to be *published* before 1923 would be OK. On the other end, only ones first published after 2002 would be OK -- those would have a straight term of 70pma in the U.S. The U.S. has a special term for works created before 1978 but first published from 1978 through 2002 -- those are protected until 2048 (basically a 70-year term starting in 1978). Exhibition doesn't necessarily amount to publication, but if there was a catalog published, that might do it. In general though the U.S. term is going to trade heavily on the publication date, which is going to be hard to pin down. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, so we roughly need to know for every painting (1200 items), if a painting is published in a catalog before 2002 (publication in US and/or Europe?)--Hannolans (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to copyright law :-/ Yes, this would be a tangle. The EU also has a 25-year publication right (article 44a in the Swedish law) but I think that would only be in effect for works first published 2015 or later, so hopefully that is moot. In general, publication in Europe should count (there is the Twin Books v. Walt Disney case mentioned above which is binding in the 9th Circuit which changes things, but we normally don't use that definition since other circuits have ruled the other way -- though that might actually help us here). I would imagine the real question is her abstract works -- if her other works were exhibited/distributed etc. normally in her lifetime, publication then might be the fair assumption. But ones where it is known she kept them private, I would be more careful with, and assume unpublished at least until exhibited. Apparently the foundation which owns them has had some ugly legal battles.[7] Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable public domain status

This image of Oscar Robertson is tagged as being in the public domain since it was published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. The source of the image is an auction for the actual photograph which says it was taken between 1960 and 1970. There is no copyright notice, but either the image was published in The Sporting News (which I assume would be copyrighted) or the image was never published. Because of either of those cases, I don't believe the photograph is in the public domain. – X96lee15 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The image must have a copyright notice on itself. Magazine's copyright notice is not sufficient. Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on who the author is. If that was a photograph by the Sporting News itself or a work for hire, and it was a private copy until recently, then yes the lack of notice on that copy means nothing, and the photo could well be copyrighted. If it was a publicity photo taken by someone else and distributed *to* others (including the Sporting News) who later had it in their archives, that it different -- that means that particular copy was distributed (and was therefore published) and needed a copyright notice to keep copyright. In that case the photo was already PD by the time the Sporting News would have printed it. It would be good to upload the back of the image as an older "version" for evidence of no notice. I do see another copy of the image here from a 2008 news article, so it may well have been a publicity photo distributed by the team, or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright/license help with File:Steinway factory Schanzenstrasse Hamburg Germany.jpg

I have uploaded a picture (File:Steinway factory Schanzenstrasse Hamburg Germany.jpg) that is from 1915. The author is unknown. I have used the license tag {{PD-old-auto}}. I would like if someone will check if the license/copyright is correct and legal. Thank you. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

On a closer look you will find a sort of watermark or inscription in the lower right corner of the image, so I suppose this work is actually not anonymous. I did a search with TinEye and found that the same image exists as a contemporary postcard which was once uploaded here as File:Steinway postkarte.jpg. However, this one was deleted in 2008 for lack of source information. So, as the image was obviously published before 1923 it is PD in the United States, but the copyright status in its source country Germany is not yet clear. Maybe an admin can temporarily restore the old postcard file to check the inscription? TinEye indexed an old thumbnail but it's too small to read anything. De728631 (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've found a higher resolution of that here (freshly archived), but it doesn't seem to offer any new information. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian govenrment map

Is this file in {{PD-UAGovDoc}}? --Rezonansowy (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say yes. While not legislative it is at least an official document with a political dimension. De728631 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree, on exactly the same argument. Seems fairly obvious. Revent (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Willard Libby

I would like to use w:File:Willard Libby.jpg in w:radiocarbon dating, and asked another editor who knows more than I do about images to explain the tags. They think it's probable that the image meets {{PD-URAA}}, meaning that it could be uploaded here. They suggested I ask here and at the media copyright questions page on en-wiki, which I've done. Any advice? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Several of these Nobel Prize photos have came up, and the basic problem is nobody knows the provenance of them, and it seems likely they could have been sent in by the winners themselves, with various photographers and varying places of first publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it on en-wiki and use a fair-use rationale. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Need assistance

Hi! I found a logo for Bohol Wisdom School here: http://bwstagbilaran.com.nu/ and https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bohol-Wisdom-School/452990128125903. Would it be alright to be uploaded for use in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohol_Wisdom_School? Thank you! Marvgabo (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As it is copyrighted, you may only upload it as a fair use image (see the guideline) and only to English Wikipedia, not to Commons. Ruslik (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, User:Ruslik0! I'll try what I can do. — MG (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

File: Nityananda_Math_-_Simurali_2015-01-30_5375.JPG

"Dear Madam/Sir,
This photograph has been taken and uploaded by me with the 'self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0' license. All the photographs and EXIF of dated 30-01-2015 may please be seen. I can not understand reason for deletion. If there is any mistake from my side, please let me know, I shall rectify. I request to restore the image. Regards." As per the suggestion from User:Fastily, I wrote this letter to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' on 18 February, 2015. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should not have been deleted. Ruslik (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gangulybiswarup: The OTRS volunteer will make an undeletion request, if all is in order, once they have processed your email. They are usually somewhat backlogged, and the 'temporary' deletion of an image that is later restored by OTRS request is not unusual, as their backlog can be longer than the time limit for a 'no permission' deletion request. You will get an email response from OTRS if there is still a problem. Revent (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No subject

If I put a screen shot of google earth on my wikipedia page, am I violating any copyright issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjenk28 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 24 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia should be raised at whichever language edition of Wikipedia you have in mind. That said, you should not upload non-free Google content to Wikimedia Commons (this site), as you did less than half an hour after posting the question above. (And no, you're not the copyright holder of this content.) Wikimedia Commons only hosts free content. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary for more information. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright on selfie-by-bystander

I was unable to find if this has been discussed on Commons before.

There is a current deletion discussion where it is being asserted that the subject of an ostensible selfie video could not be the photographer, because the camera moved during the video, indicating it was being held by another. The real issue is not who is the "photographer," but who owns the copyright.

Normally, the "photographer" owns copyright, unless it is a work for hire and certain conditions are satisfied. However, that does not actually appear to be how the law is interpreted by at least one expert, see [8]. The "creator" of a work is not necessarily a person who merely holds a camera or pushes a button. It is the person who would commonly be understood as "creating" the work. I think that expert is correct, and this could have possibly affected many Commons discussions.

This is much more in accord with how a common person would think. If I hand my camera to a bystander, to take a photo of me, I don't expect that person to then claim ownership. I assume ownership. I have taken photos for strangers many times and never expected to have any rights at all. Never have I seen anyone suggest or ask for a written agreement.

Now, for the other side, see the argument at the end of [9]. I find the argument unconvincing, being based by analogy with a very different situation. The involvement of a bystander who merely holds a camera, spontaneously, under the direction of the person who is actually setting up the photographed situation is de minimus. The *most* that the camera holder could claim is co-ownership.

Where there is possible co-ownership with an unknown person, Commons, I'd suggest, may ignore it unless a second assertion of right is known. In fact, there could be possible co-ownership of many Commons images.

Another opinion: [10]. This may be informed legal opinion, but is ambiguous, in the end, and asserts that, defacto, the person who set up the photo owns the copyright, unless there is another claim.

Here is an opinion from another expert, very different: [11]. And another: [12].

The situation with the famous selfie being discussed is not the same as a complete bystander selfie, where the person's name often may not even be known.

And my personal opinion: we will not know the true answer to the selfie-by-bystander issue unless it is actually tested in court, and that decision is confirmed on appeal. Meanwhile, there will be users who claim "own work" when, really, someone else pressed the button. What do people think? Does anyone have better evidence on this? --Abd (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You haven't cover the case when a monkey presses the button.[13] -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I certainly read plenty of that researching this. It's partially relevant, but greatly complicated. The issue with the "monkey business" is the creative involvement of the human who was claiming copyright. Many opinions I saw were generally shallow. You go to Africa to take photos, say, you set up many situations. You spend money and you do work. Do you own the product of all that work? However, the specific monkey photo was not deliberately created. It was unintentional, though the photographer had obviously allowed the animal to play with the camera. There are ontological issues here, as to causation.

The story calls it "legal quagmire" because that is commonly true with copyright law. Nobody really knows for sure how to interpret it, because it is often outside of common law. Attorneys can only guess. Or have strong opinions that can lose in court.

However, this is very different from an intentional selfie. The DeGeneris group selfie is also complicated. The role of DeGeneris and the holder of the phone, as to the "creation" is unclear. Here, I'm asking about a true selfie, set up by the subject, who does provide the camera and the setup, and simply asks someone to hold the camera and press the button. This is unlikely to ever reach a court or be legally decided, or, at least, such would be so rare that we might wait a long time, and then still never hear about it unless it goes to an appeals court.

I have one opinion so far, by a Commons administrator, because I also raised this on an old proposed guideline talk page: [14]. That opinion is quite what I thought before researching it. I think it is what most people will think, who are not copyright experts. --Abd (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Reading more on the w:Monkey selfie, that issue is not resolved. the U.S. Copyright office issued a ruling that a "work created by a non-human" will not be allowed copyright, but if I set up conditions, say in my studio, where natural forces create an image, which I select out of thousands created, say, I'm the artist. The photographer will claim that he set up the conditions -- at great expense, in fact -- where a non-human force resulted in a photo. He created it. And I have no idea how a court will decide. I have an opinion, shown by the example I gave of the artist, but courts, amazingly, sometimes don't agree with me. --Abd (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)::*Here is another opinion, from the Guardian.[15]. Answers depend on questions, and the real question hasn't been answered by anyone with authority, i.e., a court. I have a sense that a court will agree with Slater, and that Wikipedia may lose. Having denied a DCMA takedown notice, it could be expensive. But that's not really the issue here. --~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 February 2015‎ (UTC)

My Canon SX600HS point and shoot camera has an "Auto Shooting after Face Detection (Smart Shutter)" feature. For example: "Auto Shooting after Smile Detection. The camera shoots automatically after detecting a smile, even without you pressing the shutter button." You can use the Wink Self-Timer: "Aim the camera at a person and press the shutter button all the way down. The camera will shoot about two seconds after a wink is detected." Who is the photographer? The button pusher or the winker. It has other modes like detecting a person entering the shooting area. You can control the camera from your smart phone. The human holding the camera is just acting as a tripod. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion: the person who set it up. Intention is key (as it is with many legal situations). David Slater -- the nature photographer -- knew what he was doing. The specifics of the photos were "accidental," but that photos were taken was apparently not, he set it up, or so he claims. So in this case, Commons is hosting a photo where there is a human who may have ownership rights. (If a human has co-ownership with an animal, i.e, if the animal had been human, the human doesn't lose the rights because an animal can't own the rights.) Perhaps I should ask the uploader if he asked a monkey to hold the camera.

And, bingo. This is the monkey selfie, hosted here. It is now under a deletion discussion, since yesterday. Ah, it is such a beautiful photo. --Abd (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This type of thing muddies all sorts of copyright situations, and (as you've found) you'll probably find as many opinions as there are responses. It's likely that different court cases could also end up different ways -- judges could also have differing opinions. And it could vary by country quite a bit. Without court guidance, it's going to be impossible to have any sort of real guidance. In general, the copyright in a photograph is based on the angle chosen, the framing, the lighting -- elements under control of the photographer. My own take... Degeneres probably owns the copyright, with perhaps a joint copyright with Cooper. Not because it was her idea, but more rather she chose the basic angle and framing, and handed the camera to Cooper to get a better angle -- if the angle was still her choice, that is primarily her authorship regardless of who pressed the button. But, it could be arguable that Cooper added his own specific framing -- in which case it could be joint authorship. There could also be an element of "work for hire" when someone asks and directs someone else to take a photo using their equipment -- may not meet one of the statutory definitions but a court might still rule that way. Simply owning the equipment doesn't do it though -- to me it's the act of directing that other person as to the elements and angle that makes the photo more the original person's authorship and less the person pressing the shutter. As for the monkey photo... yikes. Most of the time, I'd guess there is copyright on photos where someone sets up a camera, perhaps on a timed basis or a trigger or some sort, hoping to get a particular type of shot. At least in that case, the camera is positioned and framed by a human. For the monkey one... it's hard to identify exactly what specific expression is attributable to the human author. He put the equipment in place to potentially get a happy accident, I guess, but expression due to nature is not copyrightable -- and it's hard to attribute any of the actual expression in the photograph to the human author. The angle, framing, etc. was chosen by the monkey (or it just happened that way). Similar situation might be giving an elephant a paintbrush and canvas -- a human set up the conditions for a work to be created but the actual resulting expression is not attributable to that human. It's close, and maybe Slater could claim some sort of focus settings on the camera which resulted in the type of shot he wanted, but at least in the U.S. that might be a tough argument (particularly given the Copyright Office's guidelines -- those are challengeable in court but it's an uphill battle to get a court to contradict them). The UK uses a "skill, labour, and judgment" criteria... I'm not sure that skill and judgement are present either. But he may have a better chance in the UK than the US (which can also be an issue in disputes like this... someone used to a copyright regime in their own country may not completely understand when the subtleties are different elsewhere). Still, there could be a judge who sees things differently -- sometimes they rule like copyright was more intended to protect the expense or effort involved; it can feel "wrong" to make copies like that, and a judge may search for a way to rule that way. Another interesting question might be a camera attached to a rocket or balloon, set to take pictures at fixed intervals, then fired off -- the angles would be all over the place, with perhaps a happy accident resulting in a cool photo. There are probably many other similar situations which blur the lines as well. But in the end, you have to identify a copyrightable aspect of the photo (framing, angle, lighting, arranging the subject matter, perhaps timing) attributable to a human author in order for there to be a copyright. Some situations which might seem similar may differ in just one of those aspects and thus the result could be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your second-to-last sentence here is quite apt, in that one must be able to point at a specific identifiable aspect of 'the work itself' to create a claim. Well stated. Revent (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Yvonne De Carlo older.png

Please delete File:Yvonne De Carlo older.png Copyrighted screencaps. --178.9.83.51 11:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Next time, you can just add a {{Copyvio}} template. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploades of User:Francomcdaddy

All six images in en:Aran knitting patterns were uploaded by User:Francomcdaddy, placed on the article page when it was created by the same user and the images are claimed to be own work but are all available in exactly the same resolutions on this webpage. They have not been questioned since their upload almost 2 years ago and the website has a clear "all rights reserved" notice. As a inactive user we are highly unlikely to get an OTRS verification for the images even if the user has such rights. What to do? Nominate all for deletion? Ww2censor (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Villers-Bocage_ambush.svg

Hi, the above map was deleted a short while ago. As explained by Fastily, the map was deleted due to "Reusing copyrighted works (the 2 books from Taylor and Forty) into a derived work does not permit relicensing it with an open licence, without an explicit permission from authors, even if their attributions are present." In addition, he noted " Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons".

I still have a question about this, which i was not able to get to the bottom of. The map in question was largely based off Second World War British aerial reconnaissance photographs, reproduced in Forty's book with permission of the Imperial War Museum. Forty's work included an aerial photograph of the area with an overlay highlighting the various German and British positions and key features in and around the town. As i can no longer see the file's description, i do not know what page of Taylor's work was cited. If pp. 16-17, there is a hand-drawn map of the area (that would have only served a purpose of being used as a guide since the map deleted looked nothing like it and if i am not mistaken included features from the recon photo), otherwise the only other candidate would be p.40 that contains another Second World War British aerial reconnaissance photograph used in a similar way to Forty.

As the Commons is full of images uploaded from the IWM, all of which are in the public domain, and as far as i am aware the position of certain units is not copyrightable, is this file still classified as a derived work of a copyrighted work that cannot be reproduced?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Smyth The Great Comet of 1843.jpg

PD-old (Charles Piazzi Smyth lived from 1819 to 1900) or CC-BY-ND-SA as mentioned in the source website [16]? Started a DR . --C messier (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody may license an image that is in public domain. Any such a license is invalid. So, the only option is pd-old. Ruslik (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

British Museum Pictures?

I read in the news that the British Museum recently changed their licensing and is now working with wikipedia and wikimedia to make their collections more accessible. There is a photograph of a statue on the British Museum website that I want to use for an article I am editing. It's the only photograph of the object available, to my knowledge, because the item is not on display. I read through their terms of use, and I STILL can't figure out if I can use the picture or not. I also searched through the archives and couldn't find and answer. Help please? Florimell1919 (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the websites Terms of Use you can not use content from their website within our scope of free licensing or public domain content. You can only reuse content from their website for “Approved Purposes” which are exclusively non commercial, thats not enough here. Under our rules (COM:ART) you can reuse photographic reproductions of 2D objects. Not 3D objects, not statues. --Martin H. (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Extract from Post Stamps

Hi. I have a question. Is it possible to upload extract images from post stamps? For example here. The original photo is copyrighted, but the post stamp where this photo is used not. So, could we keep this image under the same liscence under which the post stamp was uploaded? --Interfase (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that post stamps are not copyrighted? Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Because they are product of state and can be upload under {{PD-AZ-exempt}} liscence. --Interfase (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is permitted. The postal authorities have presumably obtained permission from the copyright owner of the image to use it on the stamps. However, the image remains copyrighted, and its appearance on a stamp probably doesn't mean that it is magically now in the public domain. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sattar Bahlulzade on stamps. Yann (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot agree with "image remains copyrighted". We don't upload original image. We just used the version which is used on the stamp. Original photo of course will be with higher quality and copyrighted, but we just upload a part of this stamp. --Interfase (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the size of the file doesn't change its copyright status. This is only valid for fair use claims, which are not allowed on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Answered on DR page. --Interfase (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this US Army or not?

So is it, or isn't it?

After a long conversation with the original poster of the image to the right, I can confirm 100% that the person who clicked the shutter was a pilot for an airline under contract to the US Army. The image is of what was then a limited-access base, where only members of the US military and invitees could work. So, does this fall under the US Army release, or not? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If the facts are not completely certain, then the precautionary principle is weighted by our common understanding of "significant doubt". In this instance (and after some google image searching) I would not see sufficient doubt to be concerned for copyright, even though there is no specific on-line US-Gov release we can find.

I think this counts as making reasonable efforts to determine copyright were anyone to try to claim damages. --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank's Fae, as always! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:STFBr

Hi! The attribution template {{STFBr}} was created in 2005 by Carlosar (talk · contributions · Statistics) (inactive since 2009), most likely based on this license (wayback 12.2005): "As fotos desta página podem ser usadas gratuitamente. O crédito para o Supremo Tribunal Federal deve ser mencionado." = The pictures on this page can be used free of charge. The credit for the Supreme Court should be mentioned.

Problems:

1. Is this license by any means interpretable as the template suggests: "STF allows it to be used for any purpose, if the source of the picture is given. (...) Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." ?? Example: File:CarlosAyresBritto.jpg.
2. The pictures on this page (...) = NOT ALL images coming from the website of Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) are {{STFBr}} as the template suggests. Note that http://www.stf.gov.br changed to http://www.stf.jus.br around 07.2008 and the 1st link mentioned above (the license) disappeared. Actually there is no CC/Attribution or PD whatever license (so far as I could see) available at http://www.stf.jus.br.

Files affected (what links here): [17]: Common has around 60 files, mostly uploaded after 07.2008 from http://www.stf.jus.br and which were taken mostly from their image bank ("Banco de Imagens") or other related sources. Example: File:His Excellency Celso de Mello 20120906.jpg or File:Néri da Silveira.jpg or File:Ministro Marco Aurélio STF.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The BR copyright law about governmental media is a mess, if we based ourself in one obsolete law, all governmental media are under a PD after 15 years Art. 46, but, in the currently law nothing is mentioned [18]. I really do not know what to do. -- RTA 10:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The old 15 years copyright term is reflected in {{PD-BrazilGov}} after the law changed in 1998 (1998-15=1983). Gunnex (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 Info Email sent to http://www.stf.jus.br to gain permission for their image bank ("Banco de Imagens", around 21.000 photos). I must confess that I already had some bad experiences contacting Brazilian authorities in similar cases but let's see what will happen here... Nevertheless, I would appreciate a 2nd/3rd opinion about the validity of the historic license ("... free of charge....") as demonstrated above. Gunnex (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Books from Oxford library

I'd like to know if I can upload on Commons a scan of a book available on the Oxford Libraries Online, the file is described here: solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk

The pdf file shows a CC by-nc-sa license but obviously this edition is in PD, the author died in 1896 and the book was published in 1875.

I didn't find any template like {{Gallica}} especially made for books from Oxford library, and we don't seem to have many books from this siteat the moment on Commons, so I'm wondering if this scan is acceptable here. Thank you for your wise thoughtful advice! WεFt (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weft: Before uploading the 'cover page' should probably be removed (because of the Bodelian Library logo). As far as the actual 'page images', merely scanning a PD book is not a 'creative act', so generates no new copyright. If the book itself is PD, so are images of the pages. See Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag for a fuller discussion. Revent (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made this template {{Bodleian}} to identify books coming from this source. WεFt (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Good work. :) Revent (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Prehistoric and historic cave paintings

Are w:cave paintings that are made thousands or hundreds of years ago all in public domain? An example is this prehistoric South African bushmen painting: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Southafrica468bushman.jpg the uploader claims it's licensed under GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0, however, the original work was created long before 1886, so it should be considered public domain. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There are two separate works here: the cave painting itself, and the photograph of the cave painting by Jimfbleak. The cave painting is clearly in the public domain, but the copyright of the photograph is owned by Jimfbleak. Thus, the photograph was properly licensed by the uploader. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The surface the cave painting is on is not two-dimensional, but instead has a rough texture. In such a case, the photographer is making a 'creative decision' in how they chose to light the surface. Also, there are no defined borders to the original work (the drawing) and thus the actual framing is an artistic decision. For a photograph of a PD work to also be PD, any 'realistic' depiction of the same work would have to have an essentially identical appearance, which does not seem to be the case here. Revent (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Right, as with SMU and Revent. The uneven and non-flat cave walls mean that photographs attract their own copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For the When to use the PD-Art tag policy page, the question of adding an example regarding photos of cave paintings has been raised on the talk page. --Gazebo (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)