Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/02

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

2D reproduction?

Hi, Can this be considered a 2D reproduction?

Also File:Book-of-Hours-Yah5-JudasKiss.jpg shows a CC-BY-SA license, but I can see any at the source. Should it be under a PD-Art instead? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Possibly on the first one. @Fæ: . Second one I think could be PD-Art, I'm more sure of that. Abzeronow (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Very old documents like this are safe to swap to PD. I have added the license but left the old one, it's not a legal contractition to have both. --Fæ (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

File:The Sun with Prominence.jpg

The file comes from SOHO, a joint project of ESA and NASA. I have been not able to find any statement regarding reusing of images on the SOHO's website. NASA's works generally are PD. ESA's are licenced under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO, but only those, where it is expressly stated (see {{ESA}} and Conditions…). So, what's the status of this file? --jdx Re: 13:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Sun with Prominence.jpg. Yann (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

White House YouTube channel video

Hello. I am wondering whether the content requested to be uploaded at phab:T208052 (phab:T208052#4919029 for the actual source) would be acceptable under {{PD-USGov}}. The YouTube video was uploaded by the official White House account, but there's no copyright statement. There's also no certainty that [the work] was "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". It could have been recorded by a contractor. A similar video was found on webtv.un.org but it seems it's all rights reserved. Sorry if it sounds a dumb question but given that uploading such video requires sysadmin work I'd rather spare them the job if the file is determined not to be allowable. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio 19:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: This appears to have been recorded by the UN in New York, and therefore subject to US copyright. The White House doesn't disagree, but doesn't mention the source. Please don't upload it per PRP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Jeff G.: It was because of the PRP and my concerns above that I prefered to ask. I'll note on the Task that there are concerns about the copyright status of this work. —MarcoAurelio 22:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Doubtful free status

I am uncertain what to do about this image: File:Sir William Turner Walton.jpg. I am unsure of the rules, but the Licensing section of the page seems to me dubious. The author is said to be unknown, but the source clearly states that Bassano was responsible. And there is no US rationale, as seems to be needed. Grateful for expert advice. Tim riley (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Fæ.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
70 years is calculated from publication for works attributed to a studio. --Fæ (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Bassano Ltd is a corporation, which means the human photographer is not identified, and is therefore "unknown". The {{PD-UK-unknown}} license is therefore accurate, provided that the photo was indeed made available to the public back in 1937 or shortly thereafter. If it was never made available until 1974, it would still be under copyright in the UK. The {{PD-old}} tag which is also there is absolutely not accurate and should be removed. The {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag would also apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

LicenseReview template wording

{{LicenseReview}} says "This file, which was originally posted to www.example.com, was reviewed on 1 February 2019 by the administrator or reviewer insert name here, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date".

This isn't always entirely factual, as Creative Commons is irrevocable and license reviews are sometimes based on archive.org snapshots or similar proof that something was available under the stated license.

I think we could just drop the last three words? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any contradiction. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If the image or license is subsequently removed from the site, then it is literally *not* "available there under the stated license" anymore. Sure, it's still available under a free license, but just not there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
It says "was available there", not "is available there". Ruslik (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: in that case "on that date" could be moved to make it say "who confirmed on that date that". But as the review date is already part of the sentence, it's redundant. "on that date" appears to refer to the license being available from the source, but that's not always right. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

File:St. Matthew and the Angel - Noel Baron Orginal Reproduction.png

Not sure about this file's licensing. The original work is File:Caravaggio MatthewAndTheAngel byMikeyAngels.jpg (Does that file name need to be changed to remove the attribution given to the uploader?) which is licensed as PD; so,if this was a photo of the painting, then it would also be PD per COM:2D copying. This file, however, appears to be a copy/reproduction of the original with a slightly different colors being used, which means that it might be eligible for its own copyright per COM:DW. So, unless the uploader is also the copyright holder, I don't think it can be kept as licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The two files have nothing to do with each other -- they are separate photographs of the same painting (the .png is far higher resolution than the one we have, and is a slightly wider crop as well). They are both PD-Art. If you want to change this one to use Licensed-PD-Art, with PD-old-100 as the PD reason, and the existing license as the digitization license, that would work. The colors and details are different, so we should be keeping both versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Here's my analysis:
  1. File:Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio - St Matthew and the Angel - WGA04127.jpg is a black-and-white photograph of a public domain painting, allowable as {{PD-art}}
  2. File:Caravaggio MatthewAndTheAngel byMikeyAngels.jpg is a colorised version of this black-and-white photograph
  3. File:St. Matthew and the Angel - Noel Baron Orginal Reproduction.png is a photograph of a modern copy of the old painting
Files #2 and #3 are derivative works and require licensing by the creator of the derivative work.
The uploader of file #2 is Mikeytheangel, and I think he is asserting that he did the recolouring. This is supported by 'byMikeyAngels' in the file name, and by File:Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio - Christ in the Garden - Colourised by Mikey Angels.jpg, where the same issue applies. If Mikeytheangel is the author of the recolouring then he needs to assign a commons-compatible licence for this - what licence syntax is required?
It appears that the painter of the file #3 is not the uploader: the file name says 'Noel Baron', but the uploader was BARRY BARON. Noel Baron died in 2006,[1][2] and our file was uploaded in 2018. The matching surname raises the possibility that the uploader may have inherited the rights and could validly apply a licence such as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, did not realize this is a destroyed painting. Agree with your assessments then. They are still unrelated to each other. The colorization may or may not qualify for a copyright; the U.S. has allowed colorization copyrights for films but I'm not sure about a single photo -- the U.S. Copyright Office tends to not allow color differences as copyrightable, per their history, though a court could decide otherwise (that is what happened with films). Other countries may well allow it. But, the first one was uploaded with a PD-Art tag, so it would seem as though no copyright is being claimed on that aspect. For the second one, if that is a complete re-painting, it probably has a copyright. If the uploader is a relative of the painter, then the existing license should be valid, with no PD-Art. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It is possible the uploader is related to the artist: https://fox5sandiego.com/2016/03/17/missing-art-mystery/ --Animalparty (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted the comments by BARRY BARON because he changed my earlier contribution (the convention is to add your comments separately, usually at the end). I will attempt to restore Barry's comments here:
(Regarding to file #2 above) [...] as a guide. It is not guesswork nor a colorized version of the black and white.
Assumption File number three (#3) The image is original, paint on canvas. It is not a colorized black and white image that is common of the St. Matthew image. That photo, however, was used as a guide. The Artist is Noel Baron (deceased) and the photo is part of a family archive. The whole story centers around the proper coloration of the St. Matthew image. The painting in progress can be seen in a news KFMB NEWS.BARRY BARON (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Verbcatcher (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a Commons' equivalent to en:WP:COPYLINK, en:WP:YOUTUBE, or en:WP:ELNEVER? The link to the YouTube video posted above would not be allowed on (English) Wikipedia for those reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Video upload question for stop-motion animated short film “Miñocas”

Last time, I've found and watched the video already, but a major issue is because it contains a whole non-libre/free music, like a pitched up song at the end for example.

So, can I upload a video without audio from YouTube into here if any issues? HarvettFox96 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC), edited on 09:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Uploading the video without sound would resolve any issue with copyright on the music, and the 'Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)' license allows us to modify the video in this way. However, I am unsure whether we can rely on the licence assigned by the YouTube uploader. The clip is from the University of Vigo, and the YouTube uploader is not an account of the university. The uploader's YouTube name matches one of the production team, but this is probably not sufficient for us to rely on the license. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Um... yeah? I've uploaded without audio version, and anyone will verify and pass the licence review soon. HarvettFox96 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC), edited on 12:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@HarvettFox96: I passed it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. HarvettFox96 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: HarvettFox96 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Captions/Structured data licensing

I've posted about designs for introducing users to CC0 for structured data on Commons. Please have a look over on the structured data talk page. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The text at the bottom of pages on Commons is also being modified to clarify licensing obligations[3]. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Sandra Day O'Connor High School (Arizona) Logo.png

I doubt such school logos are covered by PD-USGov. Other opinions would be appreciated. @Relevanteditor: FYI. Thanks, — Racconish 💬 07:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: I agree. I tagged it as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Images with watermarks that promote their Facebook pages?

When I browse Commons just now and I found there are images that fall into the gray areas: Category:Photographs by 盈棻 吳

Here some samples of the watermarks that I found:

  • 【台中泰安。落羽松】 (31264530113)
    【台中泰安。落羽松】 (31264530113)
  • 【台中美食】叉子餐廳 (33010495252)
    【台中美食】叉子餐廳 (33010495252)
  • 【台中美食】正宗麻豆碗粿 (30428807000)
    【台中美食】正宗麻豆碗粿 (30428807000)
  • 【台北。華山展覽】麗莎和卡斯柏我的小巴黎特展 (30981273554)
    【台北。華山展覽】麗莎和卡斯柏我的小巴黎特展 (30981273554)
  • 【台北美食】新村烤肉 (31409141720)
    【台北美食】新村烤肉 (31409141720)
  • 2017-01-09泰國-snow town (32360547156)
    2017-01-09泰國-snow town (32360547156)

What I meant by that, is the picture quality are OK(Some even higher quality) but they are peppered with watermarks that actively promote their FB pages. https://www.facebook.com/fullfen666/ <Or search:滿分的旅遊札記> in question.

I believe that when they uploaded to Flickr, they don't fully understand that when their images is licensed as CC, it meant that anyone can take their images for free and w/o any royalties payment. What is everyone consensus on this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister NightMoon (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mister NightMoon: watermarks may be a device to exploit Internet parrots and monkeys who are too busy “harvesting” content to edit images. It is legal, but as long as images are under CC, removal of watermarks is legal too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Works by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge (dogs playing poker guy)

Who can help date works by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge (better known as "the Dogs Playing Poker guy")? He died in 1934 so anything from the last decade of his life isn't guaranteed PD yet. Searching the copyright books (COM:RENEWAL) is not my specialty either. See also Commons:Village pump#Noun?.

It seems his works are hard to even date. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

A quick search ("Cassius Marcellus Coolidge", "Cassius M. Coolidge") gives some results from ~1900. Perhaps all his work is PD? That would make things easier. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
FWIW enWP says his anthropomorphic-dog paintings were done “[f]rom the mid-1900s to the mid-1910s”, by the end of which period he’d have been about seventy. At least the sixteen works listed there should be safe.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind there are likely a lot of imitations and parodies of the Dogs Playing Poker series, as one of the most iconic 20th-century works of kitsch, very widely reproduced. Care should be taken to ascertain alleged Coolidge paintings are actually Coolidge paintings. --Animalparty (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, https://www.dogsplayingpoker.org/faq.html (an unofficial site collecting Coolidge art and memorabilia) mentions that the copyrights to some "touched up" prints are held by Demarco Productions (discussed here). Thus, extra care on sourcing should be taken to avoid a kerfuffle. --Animalparty (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479 and Animalparty: I'm actually not interested in the Dogs Playing Poker series. I was asking for photo stand-in. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is a photo being blocked?

I am trying to upload a photo to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuckey_Peaks that was taken by my father (who the peak is named for) - as his heir, I own the copyright and the photo is of the peak that the entry is about. I received a blocking message saying ti was not constructive. ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dknuckey (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dknuckey: It is a low resolution file uploaded by a new account using the cross-wiki upload feature. A very very high percentage of uploads that meet these criteria are copyright violations so they have been automatically disabled. If it was taken in 2015 as you stated, please upload the original, full resolution, version. --Majora (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Is a waveform image of an audio file copyrighted?

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ABBA - Super Trouper Title Track Remaster Waveform Comparisons.png

This is kind of a biased question since it's obvious that I believe that it is, but others have disagreed with me.

A waveform is literally just the visual equivalent of audio. That's because "sound" is simply a very complex wave. So a very complex waveform is just a visual representation of the sound itself. That's actually how PCM encodes audio in a file; by sampling the amplitude of the waveform at fixed intervals. The waveform pictured is an example of such.

Where exactly is the line drawn between a visual representation of a waveform, the waveform itself, and a sampled representation of a waveform? Why is a waveform portrayed in image form OK but a waveform portrayed in a file not ok? Pinging User:Kosmosi and User:Amada44 as they were involved in the deletion discussion. Chess (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

But the DR was not about the visual equivalent of audio. It's a highly compressed summary of the song, not the song itself. We could stress out about the edges of copyright, and demand it be exiled to En.wp as a fair use file, but it's closer to a plot summary than an actual copy of the full work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I've put a few potential problematic waveforms at Category:Mattbuck's temporary category.
Waveforms, to me, even highly compressed, count as derivative works of the song. That makes them a copyright issue. This particular image might be considered de minimis, as every individual waveform (copyroghted item) could be removed without significantly affecting the overall image. But then the whole thing is the same song, which maybe implies DM does not apply at all.
Commons:Precautionary Principle applies I think. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Derivative work of the song? There can be a musical composition copyright, a lyric copyright, and a sound recording copyright. Which one is being infringed? What human expression of those is present in the result? Could you actually go from one of these graphs and pull a recording back out? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Not from these graphs, but I can easily imagine graphs huge enough, therefore precise enough to do so. I can even imagine a computer program which takes such a image/graph and plays the corresponding sound. Although I am not sure if any of currently known image formats supports such a huge resolutions. Interesting topic though. --jdx Re: 07:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
You can’t reproduce a whole sculpture from an ordinary photo (excluding holograms, laser-ranging imagery, &c.) but such a picture is a DW nonetheless. So I don’t think that ‘reversibility’ is a good test. I’m inclined to consider these images to be derivative works but also DM. Continuing the sculpture analogy, I’d treat these like ECU photos that might show tool-marks or surface weathering but capture no significant creative expression. (I’ve heard there’s also a convention on the length of music clips that can be aired without incurring royalties (8 s?) but that might be based on “fair use” / “fair dealing”—or just an urban legend.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
That's fair. I guess my question is more of what expression is actually copied in these charts? I'm not sure much of the sound recording is actually copied other than measurement of volume, and I'm not at all sure that's enough to support a derivative work case (actually pretty doubtful). The lyrics obviously are not copied. That leaves the musical composition, in that the question is if enough of the notes were copied. If it's more just the beat, and the individual pitches of the notes are not (just possibly the duration), unsure if the actual copyrightable expression is copied. I'm not sure I know enough about music to really know either way, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Except it is not the same as taking a 2D picture of a 3D statue. It more like taking a 2D picture of a reflection of a statue on water on an extremely windy day. There is now way to reconstruct which statue it was. The only thing you could say about the statue is that if must have had some yellow on it. If I told you which statue it was you could go an recreate the same image but you could just as well take a different statue add some yellow to it tell everybody its ‚the‘ statue and nobody could proof that its not ‚the‘ statue. Amada44  talk to me 22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
While it is totally possible to play audio from a recorded image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_sound the file I kept will not produce anything not even remotely recognizable. Normal audio is played at 44kHz. The image in question is 1700px wide for 3 minutes of audio. We have a sample rate of 9 samples per second. We need a minimum of 3 samples per wave length so the highest frequency we could play with this sample rate would be 3Hz. Since this is way below a human ear can hear really nothing will come out of a speaker if you try to feed this image into sound. It is impossible to proof that this image is derived from the abba song. It could be a pig oinking with the loudness edited to look like the abba song. I just did that for fun. Amada44  talk to me 22:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment This waveform maybe an expression of the sound recording but it's not a copyrightable expression of the sound recording and therefore may not be considered a DW of the recording. A work may not be considered a derivative of another (original) work if there is no copyrightable elements from the original in the new work. I agreed that reversibility is not a good test as most DW, especially image of a copyrighted work (artwork) are irreversible. Unless, it can be established that the waveform contains copyrighted elements from the sound recording, it's not a DW. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

File:Walt Whitman Odets portrait head 2.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation.

Why does Patrick Rogel assume I'm not the photographer of an image uploaded to Wikimedia because he finds it on another web page? Wouldn't it be better for him to assume I took the photograph as I stated when I posted it and confirm (or not) this assumption by asking me? The image wasn't "marked as a possible copyright violation." It was removed from the web page with no attempt whatsoever to raise the possibility of a copyright violation with me. I appreciate the Wikimedia Commons desire to avoid copyright violations, but I don't think assuming I'm guilty is the way to do it. I took the photograph used here: https://www.amazon.com/Walt-Odets/e/B001K7Z2VY?ref=dbs_p_pbk_r00_abau_000000 and posted to Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradford Smith (talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bradford Smith: Wikimedia Commons requires all images here to be under a free license. And we accept license declaration by the uploader at the upload time only for images that were never published prior to upload here without a free license. So for previously published images we require (either):
  • an evidence of free license at the initial publication site (fastest), or
  • a written permission following COM:OTRS procedure (can take weeks or months), or
  • an evidence that the image is PD (eg. as an official work of US government employee or if the photographer died more than 70 years ago)
No other way. Ankry (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
i find the lack of AGF in this case disturbing. uploader is disputing, so you should be going to DR. any other way is summary process. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I simply neither deleted the photo nor intend to restore it without clear evidence of free license. I am just explaining what is our copyright verification procedure applicable to such cases. For undeletion and starting a DR there is COM:UDR procedure that is pending. Feel free to comment there if you thing undeletion and converting to DR is needed here. This procedure needs justified support from at least one user to continue. No need to be an admin. Ankry (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
i am suggesting that your use of a summary process, without any attempt at consensus tends to undermine the health of commons. shall i UDR all speedy deletions? maybe i should, given the censorious standard of practice. if it should double the DR backlog, that would be fine, we should not be abandoning AGF "because backlog" Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Stop your rant.
If this was a regular size with EXIF, we could AGF, but that's not the case here. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
i'm not ranting, i am explaining why i, and many others in the GLAM movement, do not have much confidence in the governance of this site. exif is something to raise at DR; the fact that you feel free to dispense with the consensus deletion process, when you have "significant doubt" means that there is not a clear, fair standard of practice. i do not care if you keep or delete this image; but the way you do it is profoundly wrong-headed, and unhealthy. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Just an example: A user named JKRowling attempts says "I am Jane Rowling ans I want to publish the first volume of Harry Potter in English Wikisource." Would you accept this per AGF?
For AGF we need some evidence that the user is fair: eg. earlier user activity or some evidence of free license. If the user starts the OTRS procedure, we may AGF before it is finished. But if we have only an anonymous user claiming to be somebody and a copyrighted photo published somewhere. If we have only claims of a user (who may disappear at any time), then the actual copyright owner can just send a DMCA and/or sue reusers and that is what we want to protect the reusers from. Ankry (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
just an example: the smithsonian institution uploads some images for an upcoming editathon. would you then speedy delete them, before the OTRS is processed, making those files unusable by the editathon participants? and rest assured by biting the newbies you guarantee that they will disappear (which is your intent) and that is a permanent lost opportunity. show me the case of an actual re-user being sued. the threat of a lawsuit from a re-user using a FoP Germany file is greater. [4] i.e. there is no need to theoretically make up risks, when you could look at the history of DMCA take-downs for actual risk. a lot of those are "fraudy" but unlitigated. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Extinction Rebellion Logo.svg - Is PD-shape appropriate?

A jpg version of the file was uploaded by Catiline52 in November (See File:Extinction_Symbol,_Extinction_Rebellion_logo.jpg ); a bit less than two weeks ago I converted this to SVG, uploaded it to commons, applied the same {{PD-shape}} the jpg already had, and then (as is customary for SVG replacement) replaced the jpg version with the svg version on Wikipedia (see e.g. en.wikipedia). Today 150.143.118.79 posted on my talk page (see User_talk:Lommes#Extinction_Symbol), (a) claiming to be the creator of the symbol, (b) claiming the symbol to be much older than extinction rebellion, and (c) claiming the symbol is copyrighted, and thus also "the licensing info you put on the page is also incorrect".

  • (a) I can not verify whether this is correct, nor do I see a method how to verify it, but I am not sure this is even relevant.
  • (b) Cursory research tells me this is correct, Extinction Rebellion was founded in 2018, I can find uses of the symbol dating back to at least 2014. It also seems true that the name of the symbol is "Extinction symbol".
  • (c) At first glance it seems to me {{PD-shape}} is entirely warranted, it is just a dagaz rune in a circle, nothing more, but i would like another opinion, ideally several.

If claim (c) by 150.143.118.79 is correct, and the symbol is indeed "copyrighted, but is free for anyone to use on a strictly non-commercial basis" then {{PD-shape}} needs to be removed, and it is also likely the file needs to be deleted from commons, unless a specific license is given. I know there are exceptions when the author has given explicit permission to wikimedia, but I do not know the right procedures.

I have the following questions/requests:

  1. Do you agree with my naive opinion that {{PD-shape}} (which, again, I just copied from the jpg) is correct and the symbol is in the public domain, or do you believe the symbol is eligible for copyright?
  2. What is to be done now?
  3. If there is something to be done now, could someone please volunteer to take this up and become the responsible person for this matter? My life situation at the moment is less than ideal for a lengthy process like that.
  4. Could someone verify my cursory research as to the symbol being older than Extinction Rebellion, and that is is indeed named "extinction symbol"?
  5. If this is correct, could someone rename the files (both JPG and SVG) accordingly?
  6. 150.143.118.79 gave x@extinctionsymbol.info as a contact address, could someone notify them of whatever has been decided here?

Thank you very much. I am sorry to ask for someone else to take this over, but I strongly believe this should be done properly and I do not feel I can not do this properly in my current life situation.

--Lommes (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments

How can this person be so sure that they were the first one to fit a stylized hourglass into a circle? This is a very simple drawing, which fits with {{Pd-shape}} requirements. Ruslik (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
They certainly aren't the first, search for "dagaz rune" and you find hundreds. But under some copyright jurisdictions "being first" is not that important. --Lommes (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It's just a circle and two triangles. But Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Threshold_of_originality would apply. --ghouston (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ghouston - Thanks. What do you believe this means for how to proceed? --Lommes (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what it means, but I wouldn't nominate it for deletion myself. --ghouston (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Israel Defence Forces - India 2001 - (04).jpg

If this image is free due to the IDF tag, please review it. If not, please fail it. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

IDF flag is clearly "de minimis". Ruslik (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Getty Images and similars

I'm sure this had been dealt with before, but there I go.

Are all images offered by Getty Images on its sites copyrighted? I'm thinking in particular about pre-WWII photographs taken in Yemen by an unknown photographer.

According to Yemen's copyright law, photographs are under copyright for ten years after production. --Lubiesque (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Getty has lots of public domain images where they simply scanned a print, and that sort of thing. But they also have material from news organizations, where they bought the archives and copyrights, some of which could have been unpublished (or got their U.S. rights restored via the URAA) meaning there could be a valid U.S. copyright they could enforce. The country of origin is the country of first publication, not necessarily the country it was taken in. So you do need to be careful about the details; what does Getty say the source of the image is? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Here is the page with the photo I was referring to: https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/the-british-gourverneur-sir-bernard-reilly-reads-out-a-news-photo/876366286 . I would say it's a photo taken by a government or newspaper photographer. At any rate, the Yemen copyright law does say a photograph is under copyright for 10 years after production. Therefore, I don't think it is relevant who took the photo and who owns it. Such an official photo of a public ceremony must certainly have been published some time after it was taken.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The Getty page indicated the owner its Ullstein Bild, which is a German photo agency. The creator and country of first publication determines copyright: if it was first published in a German-based newspaper, we treat it as German in origin ({{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} might be applicable, but I am unfamiliar with German law). It doesn't matter where it was subsequently published. In order to claim it is copyright free under Yemeni law, we need credible, solid evidence that it was first published in Yemen: that is lacking. And even if it is currently considered public domain in Yemen, Template:PD-Yemen states we would need to indicate why this work is also in the public domain in the United States. --Animalparty (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Commons policy (see Commons:Licensing) is that the photo must be free in the United States and the country of origin. The "country of origin" is defined in the Berne Convention, and is used by countries which have the "rule of the shorter term" -- so by waiting until it is free in that country, that usually means it's free in the primary target country plus all shorter-term countries. The definition of "country of origin" is generally the country of first publication, not the country of taking or the nationality of the author. As mentioned, it appears the photo was taken by a German news correspondent, and licensed to Getty, and that makes a significant difference. I'm sure the photo is public domain in Yemen today, but if first published in Germany, that makes Germany the country of origin. Originally, photos like the one in question had a 25-year term there, later upgraded to 50 (newspaper type photos like this got increased in the 1980s). But with the EU directives, a later court case decided that the EU restorations also changed such photos from "simple photos" to "works" which are 70 pma (the author's lifetime plus 70 more years). If no author is named, then it would be 70 years from the making available to the public. If we assume that happened in 1937, and since there is no author named, it seems like it would have become PD there in 2008. The U.S. is far thornier because of the URAA (which uses a slightly different "source country" but is still the country of first publication) -- if the shorter 50 year term still applied in 1996, then it would not have been restored, but if that court ruling applies (most likely, as dating from June 1995 when the law changed), then the photo was still under copyright in Germany in 1996 and its U.S. copyright would be restored and is valid until 2033. So... you may not be free from Getty or Ullstein Bild lawsuits. Whether we should delete that under U.S. policy, or decide that the possible URAA restoration is ambiguous based on simple/work distinction change and wait to see if the copyright owners file a DMCA takedown, I'm not sure -- that is arguable. (If we get a takedown, the WMF would almost certainly delete it.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for the info. Maybe I should forget about that picture for the time being.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Can the owner of an establishment exert copyright over pictures taken there?

I have some pictures from the Forestiere Underground Gardens that I took there several years ago. However, the photo policy says the owners own the rights to all pictures taken there. Is this actually enforceable?

I'm aware that 3D art like sculptures can be copyrighted. But could the gardens be considered "3D art" as well? And would be preclude putting the images on Commons?

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: No, the ownership of that establishment in the United States cannot do that. There are no copyrights on the building per 17 USC 120(a). However, sculpture inside may still be protected, so I'm afraid we cannot accept photos of such sculpture until the copyrights have expired. See also COM:FOP United States.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks. For the record, here are my pictures from the garden. Would any of the areas shown be considered "sculptures"? Ixfd64 (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ixfd64: You might want to blur the hand-painted signs and license the photos in compliance with COM:L.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) If you agreed to those terms on admission, you might have a problem with the owners—but that’s not a copyright issue, or a bar in itself to hosting. Same for terms a gallery might impose for permission to take photos of their PD works. As for gardens, that’s a good question. FWIW I’ve noticed some discussions on the status of flower arrangements but I don’t recall any about landscape design, and certainly not underground! From the article this seems to me to fall in a grey area between architecture and sculpture. Could these be considered more utilitarian than creative? If not, they’re probably protected as subjects (not individual plants or whatever, though, that don’t capture any of their “creative expression”). I’d also like to point out that even in countries that grant FOP, it doesn’t usually apply to private premises, only permanent public installations.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC) P.S. Having looked at the pix now, the only remotely ‘sculptural’ item I see is the table-niche, and even that is a stretch; pretty sure the planters &c. are too ordinary or utilitarian to be protected.—03:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: The table-niche looks utilitarian to me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. I think it's safe for me to upload a photo here. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there's very little if anything copyrightable in that garden. Nemo 10:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Collage of one's own photographs of copyrighted materials?

So, I read Wikimedia's copyrighted materials policy, but there's an issue I'm genuinely unsure of because it's so complex. Namely, is collage of one's own; personally photographed; pictures okay if the pictures used are pictures of copyrighted material? And what about personally taken images of a design kitbashed from copyrighted 3d models?

Would the original design concepts; if distinct enough from the originals; count as my own via an act of collage if I acknowlege the individual parts belong to their rightsholders? And would the unique properties of the image itself and their utility regarding the actual manipulation of the image be enough to qualify it as derivative more of the actual photo itself than the "true" copyrighted design?

I ask, both for the sake of possibly putting my own artworks in that vein on here, and also because it's been an issue burning at me for a while now. So, anybody got any thoughts on the legality of such? Titleknown (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Titleknown: Sorry, none of that is allowed, please read COM:DW.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Ah. I must clarify I had read that previously, but was confused by what the delineation was between the object of the picture itself and the copyrighted work. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume you mean that under current law it's impossible to de-entangle the two (Which was my point of confusion, regarding if the influence of the properties of the physical photo itself and their differences from the "pure" design had any sway), and even if it's arguably under fair use via legal prescedent via Blanche V Koons, the organization would not want to take that risk? No argument with you on your decision tho, as I respect your judgement, just wanting to clarify is all. Titleknown (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Commons does not allow images to be used on a fair-use basis. As far as I can think, the only justification we allow that is in any way rooted in fair use doctrine is de minimis inclusion (e.g. it's not a problem that there happens to be a brand-labeled beverage on a lectern in a photo of a lecturer, or that the subject of a photo is wearing a t-shirt with a copyrighted logo). In a de minimis case, the photo would typically retain its purpose if the offending element were blurred out.
I suppose freedom of panorama is also a somewhat related concept (more related under the laws of some countries than others).
In any case, those two concepts don't apply to this case. Yes, there are many times an image can be used, even commercially, on a fair use basis. Commons policy is not to accept images on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Jmabel for expressing what I would have if I had been properly pinged.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Video upload question 3

For stop-motion animated short film “Buscando a mamá dino” - This one I've found and watched recently last time. Can I upload a video from YouTube into here if any issues? HarvettFox96 (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC), edited on 13:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The license assigned on YouTube is Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed), which looks ok. However, the orchestral music on the soundtrack sounds like a commercial recording, and this is unlikely to be accepted here without evidence that it is licensed correctly. Uploading without sound would resolve that issue. The film is described as winning a prize at a competition at 'IES Alameda de Osuna de Madrid', which is a high school.[5] It is unclear whether the school owns the copyright and whether the YouTube user represents the school and can properly assign the license. However, your previous upload discussed here was accepted in spite of a similar concern. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
A whole part of closing credits, Sergio is a real name of author and his YouTube channel, he was made it with his family to help.
Now this time I prefer manual editing with Kdenlive for whole original parts, especially title card and closing credits being altered.
Instead of removing audio (forget crappy sound effects), a possible way to replace with different libre/free public domain classical music like Musopen. HarvettFox96 (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC), edited on 05:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
You could replace the soundtrack with freely-licensed material, providing that you clearly indicate this on the file page and give the sources of the new soundtrack. The credits identify the musical compositions on the existing soundtrack, and you could use the same works. However, replacing the original soundtrack would make the film less valuable as an example of the animator's work, and it is unclear whether it would pass the 'educational purpose' test, see COM:EDUSE. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Here I have it after editing and arranging entire parts completely a whole day, and anyone will able to see, verify and pass the licence review for this. HarvettFox96 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The musical compositions are clearly public domain, but there might be copyright issues with the performances. Please update the file page to give more details of the sources of the music clips you used, including the full URLs from which you obtained them, if possible the performers and the recording date, and the licence assigned to the recording. For example, the Dvořák recording probably came from here, where it is licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0, but you indicate that the recording is public domain. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
There. I've already updated it, and proper attributed/credited to all performers. HarvettFox96 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC), edited on 22:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging to @Jeff G.: Can you do it now? HarvettFox96 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@HarvettFox96: Yes, but I couldn't hear anything yet.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like this has been verified and passed now. HarvettFox96 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: HarvettFox96 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

First page of a defunct magazine published by a defunct organization of the 1930s

I want to put in an article an image of the magazine Bilan, published between 1933 and 1938 in France as the organ of the "Left Fraction of the Italian Communist Party"/"Italian Fraction of the Communist Left"; neither Bilan nor the Italian Fraction of the Communist Left exist today (the first ended in 1938, and the second ended with the beggining of World War II - several political organizations claim to be their ideological heirs, but afaik, none claims to be a legal sucessor). Could I assume that the magazine is in the public domain today?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If the authors are not known then the copyright term is 70 years after the publication. Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik: Including for the copyright in USA? Or, because the work perhaps was not in public domain in France at January 1, 1996 (had only 63 years at that moment - it is an issue from 1933), only enters in public domain in USA at 2028?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
If these are anonymous works, and were published before 1937, they are also in the public domain in USA, as per {{PD-1996}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I don't understand; MiguelMadeira's math seems to work. What was the French law on anonymous works at the end of 1995?
It's not impossible, but I'm a bit surprised that it would be anonymous. I don't have an actual copy to look at, but looking at w:Communist Party of Italy, it seems likely a little research could turn up the editors and likely authors, even if they weren't published in the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It was 58 years (50 + 8 years for war extension). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
At least now, the french law seems to treat collective works the same way as anonymous, even without the provision (like anonymous and pseudonymous have) that "Lorsque le ou les auteurs d'oeuvres anonymes ou pseudonymes se sont fait connaître, la durée du droit exclusif est celle prévue aux articles L. 123-1 ou L. 123-2".--MiguelMadeira (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
But the legal editor was w:Henri Chazé, who died in 1984 - perhaps only becomes public domain 70 years after his death?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Was he the actual editor? Seems like a different person is named on the last page (at least of the first issue), with Chazé just being the administrative front and person to contact. But I'm not sure that matters either way for the term (see below). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
France enacted the EU directive in 1997, so its earlier law (50pma, 50 years for anon, plus wartime extensions) was still in place in 1996. I do see issues online, such as here. The front pages appear to be mostly textual, and I'm not sure they would even rise to being copyrightable in the U.S. in the first place, though obviously the article text would be. There may be an editor named on the last page, but really you would need to know the human authors I think. French law says the editor is the one who can enforce the rights while the anonymous term exists, but it does not say they are considered the author. If labeled as a group effort, you need to know the actual individuals -- just knowing that someone was a part of the group, without knowing he was among the actual authors, I don't think would count, unless named on the publication itself. Most articles do not seem to name an author, though some do, and those would not be anonymous. The title pages should not be an issue in the U.S. due to Commons:Threshold of originality, and while less sure in France, it's probably not worth avoiding the uploads because of that. For the actual articles... would depend on if authorship is named. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Then, If I understand, these mean that I probably can upload the first page?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Use {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-1996}}. Depending on the page, {{PD-text}} may be appropriate as I think it would apply in the U.S. for most of the ones I saw, though I don't really know France's thresholds in this area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you--MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Langenegger.jpg

If this image is a US goverment image, the license template could be corrected and the image could be passed. It comes from a NATO flickr account. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this is a USA government image? Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a problem with this image? It appears to be from an official Flickr account with a public domain license. The photographer appears to be a civilian contractor.[6] Verbcatcher (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

File:The Decline of The Simpsons.jpg

Hi, can this file stay here on Commons? Is it copyright?--Patriccck (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Patriccck: No, it cannot stay, it is copyrighted, and I have tagged it as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Usage of Portrait of Leon Riesener by Delacroix

Hello everyone, I am pretty new on Wikimedia so I apologize if this is not the right place where to put this question. I am pretty sure it is not ... but really, I got lost and do not know where to go :)

I am trying to understand if I can use for an ebook cover this picture

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_Leon_Riesener.jpg

by the user Ekenaes. The portrait, being +100 yrs old, is public domain in Italy, but the photo, being more recent than 1999, is not. So as far as I understand, I need Ekenaes permission. How can I get in contact with him / her? thanks to anyone who will help!

--Axelhery (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the country where your eBook is published, see Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. If you need to contact Ekenaes you could leave a note at User talk:Ekenaes, however the file page indicates that Ekenaes obtained the image from https://en.gallerix.ru/storeroom/991555443/N/2335915584/, so it is unlikely that he or she needs to give you permission. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Verbcatcher. Does this mean I have to ask permission to gallery.ru, I guess? Or the fact that the image is now on wikimedia means it is already free for usage?

thanks a lot!--Axelhery (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Axelhery: https://gallerix.org/action/contacts/ and defs@gallerix.ru would be the best ways to ask for that permission. I fixed your signature for you, this time.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Axelhery: an image being on Wikimedia Commons does not prove that it is ok to reuse it; in spite of our hard work there are numerous files here that should not be. We do not give legal advice, but Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs indicates that in some countries this type of photograph is not subject to copyright. gallerix appears to be based on user-submitted files,[7] in which case they are unlikely to hold the copyright of this image, but they may be able to clarify its source. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Georges Léonnec01.jpg

This file is licensed as {{PD-old-70}} which may be fine for its country of origin, but there’s nothing about whether it’s also PD in the United States. The template’s page says works published from 1924 and 1977 are copyrighted in the United States; so, not sure if Commons can keep this or how the update the licensing if it can. — Marchjuly (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I found this at Alamy, if it helps.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that, but it doesn't appear that the licensing that website is using is compatible with COM:L. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't get the point; it doesn't change the fact that French works from 1929 are almost invariably copyrighted in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding File:Mark-Bode-in-2019.jpg

I recently uploaded this photo of Mark Bodé. The photo was taken in an atrium in a hotel in the US where a convention (open to the general public) was being held. I am assuming that the background elements should not be a copyright issue. Mr. Bodé is wearing sunglasses and a cloth cap; the latter has a pattern on it (I do not know how old the cap is or where it came from), but that may or may not be a copyright issue. --Gazebo (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay? I don't see anything there that could even vaguely be considered a copyright issue. The hat would be de minimis even if it had a copyrighted picture on it, but I doubt the copyrightability of the pattern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Even if the en:Herringbone (cloth) pattern were copyrightable, I think the copyright would have expired long ago.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. My sense was that the content of the photo was more likely than not to be acceptable on copyright grounds; however, there were some aspects that I felt unsure about. I wanted to get some input from others before making substantial use of the photo (i.e. adding it to an article.) --Gazebo (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Files in the category The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (Disneyland)

In the category The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (Disneyland), it appears that there are some images that may pose copyright concerns. (In particular, the US does not have FOP for artistic works.)

Of particular concern, there are the following images:

For the other images, things are less clear:

--Gazebo (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Here we go: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (Disneyland). Yann (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Pierrepoints.jpg

Can Commons keep this file as licensed? It's currently being used in en:Thomas Pierrepoint and should also be OK to use in en:Albert Pierrepoint as long as there are no problems with its licensing. However, concerns about its licensing are being raised at en:File talk:Albert Pierrepoint, English hangman.jpg. If this file is OK for Commons, then there's no need a non-free file to be used for either Wikipedia article; on the other hand, if this file needs to go, then it possibly could be uploaded as non-free and used locally for the "Thomas Pierrepoint" article or a replacement image need to be found instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: this file has been nominated for deletion per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pierrepoints.jpg; it was kept per a previous DR, but perhaps there wasn't sufficient discussion for such a close. Anyway, maybe this time around the licensing can be better clarified either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Licensing situation of overwritten files

I've been going through Category:Media requiring a split up trying to clean up a lot of the really old requests in there and for the most part I've been focusing on clear PD images that were overwritten with other PD images. These are easy. However, problems arise with requests such as File:Pryor Creek Bridge.jpg which are not PD and are licensed under a specific Creative Commons license. There are actually three separate images on that file page that need to be split apart but if you look at the history I run into problems. Two of the files are from the same person so I can assume that they agree with their original license and that it applies to both images. However, one is from a different person. Are we to assume that the overwriting individuals, even when that person is completely different from the original uploader as is the case with file #3 in the example, agree to the license that is already on the page? In this instance the person did overwrite some of the other information on the page. Does that make a difference? What if it is a different individual and there is no further edits on the page from the other uploader as is the case with File:台北市政府.JPG? Are we just to assume that that means they agree to the license already stated? Should the intervening version(s) just be deleted due to the ambiguity? I'd like some other's thoughts on the proper course of action I should be taking here. --Majora (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

When overwriting a file, the "Upload file" form explicitly states: "You agree to publish your upload under the same license as stated on the file description page" (MediaWiki:Uploadtext). Therefore I don't believe there is any ambiguity. --Wcam (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair but by virtue of them overwriting it to begin with means they didn't bother reading the line or the guideline on the matter correct? Does that matter? --Majora (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: Legally, I don't think that matters. @AbeEzekowitz: You're the uploader who violated COM:OVERWRITE here, what do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Probably not. Mkay. I'll start splitting the rest of the files assuming the license listed is the license agreed to. I just wanted to make sure I was working within the bounds of what the community wanted. --Majora (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: File:Pryor Creek Bridge.jpg is all the same person.

  • File:Sidewalk Highway.jpg: initial version uploaded by Vanessaezekowitz (take note: kowitz) in 2008, no source. Overwritten by TheWhitePelican in 2008. Overwritten again in 2010 by AbeEzekowitz. (another kowitz)
  • File:Redings Mill Inn.jpg: uploaded by AbeEzekowitz, taken with a Powershot A75. Same as TheWhitePelican's revisions of File:Pryor Creek Bridge.jpg.
  • TheWhitePelican contributed from 6 April 2008 to 1 November 2008. AbeEzekowitz contributed from 11 October 2008 to 23 September 2016.
  • And finally: both TheWhitePelican and AbeEzekowitz have a tendency for user talk page blanking. In conclusion:  It looks like a duck to me, which for once is actually good news! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Fair points. I'm just going to assume the license listed is the one agreed to by the overwriter regardless going forward. Since that example is very likely to be the same person anyone it just makes it that much easier. --Majora (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Screenshots of European Commission's websites

This is a screenshot from European Union Publications Office Open Data Portal. Is this kind of file meets the requirement of Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39)? --WQL (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the following image copyrighted?

I want to add this image https://www.yeshivaofcleveland.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/yoc.png to w:Yeshiva of Cleveland, but I don't know if it has a copyright. I am new to Wikimedia Commons, and I have no idea how to figure this out. I would appreciate some help. Thanks — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: I would say it is copyrighted. If it were only text, maybe it would be OK ({{PD-simple}} or {{PD-text}} may apply). Thing is "that face" precludes that possibility. Strakhov (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
OTOH although I agree it’s copyrightable because of the portrait, it could probably be uploaded to enWP with a fair use rationale for that article as identifying the subject.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Strakhov: @Odysseus1479: That face is actually Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan and it is based on a famous picture of him. I doubt the original picture is copyrighted because I have seen it everywhere. (It's not as creepy on a white background.) I believe this is the original. https://66.media.tumblr.com/0f11491294e19c152216ea8dc08c8bfb/tumblr_mhxo9vDwzp1s4lolfo1_400.jpg If the original is in fact uncopyrighted, will the logo be fine since it's just the picture and text?
As far as uploading directly to Wikipedia goes, I have no idea how to do that. What's the process? — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Puzzledvegetable: even if the photo’s copyright has expired (which, if the photographer’s identity is known, would be 70 years after hir death), its incorporation into the logo makes the latter more complex than it would be as plain text. The USA has a high threshold of originality, but even so the complete logo is not obviously too simple to copyright. You could certainly try uploading it here, but IMO there’s a fair likelihood it would end up getting deleted, absent permission from the school.
Uploading to enWP works basically the same as here; you can start from the “Upload file” link in the left sidebar of any page on that project. (Just don’t choose the Commons wizard or forms where given those options.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:POTUS Peyton.jpg

Would this be considered "out of scope" per COM:SCOPE? It could be argued to be a personal photo of some sort per COM:INUSE, but the only purpose for it seems to be for the uploader to goof around and use it in some fictious infobox at en:User:Wikipedian770/sandbox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This page is for copyright issues; scope questions should probably be raised elsewhere, possibly at Commons:Village pump. The file is probably not realistically useful for an educational purpose, but it could be allowed under COM:INUSE as it was uploaded recently and Wikipedian770 may be planning to use it on his or her talk page. There is a copyright problem with this file: it is a derivative work based on File:President Barack Obama.jpg, but this has not been declared properly on the file page. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wikipedian770. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Lunch atop a Skyscraper.jpg

Hi, Seeing that the author is not ascertained (see en:Lunch atop a Skyscraper), the picture is probably in the public domain, at least for lack of copyright renewal. It is under fair use on the English Wikipedia. However, on Commons, the license is certainly wrong. Any idea? Yann (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

here is more image history [8]; [9] published The New York Herald-Tribune, Oct. 2 1932 w:Charles Clyde Ebbets, w:Tom Kelley (photographer), or William Leftwich. -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
do not see this image at Bettman Archive, and no source link. they credit Charles Clyde Ebbets, but link rotted.
here is 1932 registration [10]; do not see a renewal here [11] or [12] - renewals seem to be sporadic by author of excerpts i.e. [13] - i would use PD-US no renewal. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I changed the license. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I'd like to document the registration in the file description, but I can't find it in the file you linked. What's the registration number? Regards, Yann (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
if you use the find key on the text layer you get: "New York herald tribune. Daily, fol. © N. Y. tribune, inc. 6102-6192 v. 91, no. 31093, © Jan. 1, 1932 (B 138766) to v. 91, no. 31182, © Mar. 31 (B 15000S)." -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
New York Herald Tribune renewed their stuff. Here are renewals for a lot of 1932 editions; The Oct 2 1932 edition got registration number B167494, and renewal number R263364 it looks like (have to search on R263363). Looks like the newspaper was pretty good about renewing all its stuff. Now... I'm not sure they were the copyright owners though. But if they still had part of an exclusive right on the photo in 1960, its copyright would be renewed. I have not done searches for Rockefeller Center, which may have owned it as a work for hire. Seems like conflicting reports on whether Ebbets was an employee or an independent contractor working through an agency. May need to do searches on Ebbets, Rockefeller Center, and Hamilton Wright agency to see if any renewals come up there. It probably was not renewed, given that the Herald Tribune was likely not a copyright holder (they were apparently more publicity photos), but the searches have not really been done. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
yeah, the searching printed volumes is a mess; when will we get a database with a permalink? here it is at Bettmann archive [14] but don't know provenence of their claim. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Someone had a request to create a vector image of a university's logo. I used this file as a reference to recreate the logo in vector form. In searching for referece images, I realized that there aren't many online logo images of this particular university and decided to upload the SVG file to replace the low res logo picture on its Wikipedia page.

When I uploaded the picture, the next day I received the following message:

Thanks for uploading File:PNS Jauhar Vector 1.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Now, I am not sure what should be the copyright tag. The problem is the there are only two pictures of this logo over the whole internet. One was the low res from the Wikipedia page and the other (which I found later) is from its Facebook page. I couldn't even find the the logo image on its official website.

Any help in this regard will be highly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzair.a.suria (talk • contribs) 06:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Uzair.a.suria: , the problem is that the copyright of the logo probably belongs to w:en:Pakistan Navy Engineering College. The file you use for reference (w:en:File:NUST PNEC logo.png) is non-free media uploaded to Wikipedia with a fair-use justification. Your vector version is a derivative work, and is still subject to the college's copyright. This file can only be kept on Commons if it can be established that the college has released the logo with a acceptable license. I cannot find the logo on college's website, and it is possible that they no longer use it. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

COM:FOP Macao not ok?

The language of the law appears to allow a photo of an outdoor 3D artwork like File:Macau,China-LotusSquare.png. The language is also similar to COM:FOP Portugal which is determined as OK. Therefore I think "Not OK" in COM:FOP Macao should be changed to OK, but would like to also see other opinions. --Wcam (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  •  Support Yeah, not sure when/if that changed, but the Google translate seems fine, full FOP. The restrictions are normal moral rights restrictions, and of course you can't make a photo that amounts to a copy (i.e. straight-on reproduction of a 2D work cropped to basically the original). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs)

OK then. I changed it to OK and created {{FoP-Macao}} accordingly. --Wcam (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

User created svgs of PD-CAGov files

I have a question about File:Irvine flag.gif and File:Irvine flag.svg. The former seems to have come from the city's official website and is licensed as {{PD-CAGov}}, while the latter seems to be a user-created svg version. According to COM:SVG#Copyright, svg files may be considered copyright protected even if they just are of something which is PD. In addition, the PD-CAGov license states that works created by a "government unit (including state, county, and municipal government agencies) of the State of California" are PD, but not sure how that applies to svg recreations unless it's a government unit doing the recreating. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure {{PD-CAGov}} applies here because it only applies to written work: 6252(e) "“Public records” includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. “Public records” in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor’s office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975."
If some other basis for PD can be found, it would be great if @Fluffy89502: could add a CC license to their SVG to address that concern. BMacZero (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I see that the template has a clause that describes how "writing" appearently includes images, so that appears to be fine. BMacZero (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I could add a {{PD-Self}} tag to the page, but I do not see how that would make much sense since if I went and did the same thing I did to the flag to the logo of Target, for example, the image would still be copyrighted and I would not have any authority to change the copyright status of such. Fluffy89502 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"This also applies if you are the author yourself."

{{Image permission}} includes the sentence, "This also applies if you are the author yourself." but the directly related deletion tag itself, {{No permission since}}, doesn't. Shouldn't it? --Geniac (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that this phrase can be added to the latter template. Ruslik (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Help processing date

Hello, this file is tagged 5 January 1922, but the website it is credited to asks the question, "This is a terrific photo that we found on the Internet, but unfortunately it wasn’t labeled with a date. Anyone out there know when this was taken or who these three ballplayers are?" Can someone with more knowledge than I see if this is a keepable image? It looks like at least a few of the images this user uploaded use this website as a source, but the website took them from other places. Please advise if this is OK. Rgrds. --216.106.78.142 22:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The uploader Cochrate specified 5 January 1922, but I can see nothing to support this date. A comment on the source website says "I think this photo dates from the 40s or maybe even the 50s", which adds to the doubt. The image is also here, again without a date. We can deduce a likely date range from the uniforms, which match this picture which has been dated to 1930, but not the 1924 uniforms shown here. This indicates that the picture dates from after 1924 and that {{PD-1923}} is incorrect. Commons:Hirtle chart indicates that the copyright status of images published in the US between 1924 and 1977 depends on whether they were published with a copyright notice and whether copyright was renewed. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Do their works fit {{PD-USGov}}? (File:Oakridge clarice phelps interview.jpg)--Roy17 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably depends. It's federally funded, but it looks like most of the work is actually done by a federal contractor, en:UT–Battelle. If this was done by a federal employee, then probably yes. If it was done by a federal contractor, then probably no. But I'm not sure we have enough information to tell at this point. GMGtalk 20:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Presumably yes, see {{PD-OakRidge}}. The actual source or creator of images should be always be examined, as some government websites host material not created by government employees. --Animalparty (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Max Pixel, a fishy image source

special:search/insource:maxpixel, all of these come from maxpixel.net . I suspect this is an unauthorised clone of pixabay. So the images could be possibly free, but to verify them is difficult because it involves looking for the source on pixabay.--Roy17 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It is probably sites like this which caused pixabay to change licenses earlier this year. The CC0 license basically authorized sites like this. Anything taken from pixabay before January 9 2019 would have the CC0 license, and there is nothing legally wrong with maxpixel or others copying that stuff and offering it there. It would help if we could also document the pixabay source but not sure that is absolutely required. If maxpixel continues to take images from pixabay which are not CC0 licensed, then there would be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Images from MaxPixel.FreeGreatPicture.com, ongoing for six months.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
so grabbing CC0 is stealing now? i guess i can use that against Getty as well. and wow 11 files, some of which the nominator reviewed and passed. quite a closing dilemma. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

File:HM Bateman08.jpg

This photograph was taken in 1931 in the UK, and is currently rights managed by Getty (source) with the credit Fox Photos / Stringer, Hulton Archive. The PD rationale as given (unknown author with {{PD-old}}) is incorrect and misleading: if author is unknown the death date is also. I don't know if "Stringer" refers an individual associated with Fox Photos, a person acting as a stringer (part time correspondent), or simply another company. I'm not sure if {{PD-anon-70-EU}} is a credible alternative. Can anyone shed light on the authorship? The Hulton Archive appears to have changed ownership several times over the last half-century. If a credible PD-rationale is lacking, I'll propose it for deletion. --Animalparty (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

why don't you change the license to PD-UK-unknown rather than threatening deletion of a file in use? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Because {{PD-UK-unknown}} is based on the assumption the author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. I figure this is a first step in reasonable enquiry. The fact that I personally don't know the author doesn't mean the author is unknowable. --Animalparty (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The author would have to be known by now. The author becoming known more than 70 years after publication would not bring the photo back from public domain. Additionally, the site which presumably would have the most information on the photo does not name the author. If you can't find it with an Internet search, it's a reasonable tag to add. It would be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} though until 2027. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
deliberately confusing unknown with unknowable. what is your conception of credible and reasonable? it is not in the metadata. what good faith search would you accept to meet this standard? you are just looking for excuses to delete things. the sword of damocles is not a license quality improvement process. do not do deletion enforcement for Getty, who are well-known for copy fraud. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OTRS volunteers for Permissions queue

Hi all, on meta, we've added some clarification about volunteering for the permissions queues at OTRS. These are the email about copyright permissions to publish works on Commons (or on other Wikimedia projects). As the work on permissions-commons (this is the name of the main OTRS queue related to Commons) strongly impacts these pages, it's important to underline that these emails are ideally handled by users with a strong experience on copyright issues, without being paranoiac but willing to verify the information we are presented.

This is why are invited to apply all Commons' admins, and license reviewers with experience, as this is a meaningful complement to their usual workflow. OTRS is also a drama free zone, so users with past issues with the community aren't generally fit for the job.

Thanks and have a nice day! --Ruthven (msg) 13:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

+1 - We can always use more OTRS volunteers, especially those with advanced permissions and those who are multi-lingual. Even if you can only process a few tickets a week, every little bit helps. GMGtalk 15:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
by "drama free zone" you mean the posting to wikimedia-l (by another volunteer) touting OTRS primary sources as superior to secondary sources? you might be able to find more volunteers, if you were reasonable and accountable. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'll consider applying again. As you know, I am darn good at verification checks. --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Wikimedia-screenshot and works derivative of CCBYSA 4.0 content

Someone please correct me if I'm missing something obvious here, but we were discussing this at User talk:AHollender (WMF), and there doesn't seem to be an actual answer. So, if someone makes a derivative work from content licensed under CCBYSA, then their own derivative work must be licensed with the most recent CCBYSA or higher, in order to be compliant with the licenses of the original content (e.g., 2.0 + 3.0 + 2.0 = 3.0 or 4.0 ... 2.0 + 3.0 + 4.0 = only 4.0).

Template:Wikimedia-screenshot has an option to list the works from which it is derived and their associated licenses, but it always defaults to the derivative work being 3.0. That's all well and good for the purposes of attribution, but it doesn't address the fact that if one of the original works (such as an image in an infobox) is 4.0, then the derivative work cannot be 3.0.

Basically, we need someone who is template savvy to add a parameter for something like CCBYSA-4.0=yes that makes the template substitute Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0 instead of always using Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 for the overall licensing of the derivative work. GMGtalk 17:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I changed the default, but someone has to port the appropriate text into Commons:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License based on Commons:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and then patch Template:Wikimedia-screenshot/en and the other languages. I don't have time for that at present, sorry.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I would do it myself but I have no idea how to. Thanks for the help. Hopefully someone can come along and finish everything up. GMGtalk 18:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that we cannot deny some users just expressed their choices that they uses CC BY-SA 3.0 to license these screenshots. I would argue that adding a parameter for something like CCBYSA-4.0=yes could be a good choice. --WQL (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Nga Hauranga Valley 22 March 1859.pdf

I have just uploaded the above file in the belief that because the photograph was taken, in New Zealand, in 1859 (160 years ago) it is free of copyright. The attached licence indicates why I believe it is out of copyright but because it is a pdf file it has a second page declaring it remains under copyright. What should I do? Thanks Eddaido (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It should be converted to JPEG and uploaded as such. PDF is a bad format for single images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Done. Eddaido (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Logo tvn panama.png

This seems to have the wrong license. I don't see any indication at tvn-2.com that this has been released under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, and there's nothing really about Panama's threshold of originality in COM:TOO. Is there any reason this shouldn't be converted to {{PD-textlogo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I also think that it should be converted to {{PD-textlogo}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

500px license changed

It seems that 500px changed its license in July 2018. Is it still capable with COM:L? --158.182.178.117 07:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but this is how I understand it:
  • As a 500px-user, you won't be able to mark your uploads there with a Wikimedia Commons-compatible Creative Commons license license any more.
    • → Since the switch we can not import any further images from 500px to Wikimedia Commons.
  • Any images at 500px that had/have a Creative Commons will have that license tag removed at 500px.
    • → As Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, that does not change anything for images that were rightfully imported from 500px to Wikimedia Commons under the terms of a Creative Commons license.
  • Some people were working on this when it was fresh, details at Commons:500px licensing data.
Hth, --El Grafo (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

George Rinhart

Hi, I can't find the dates of birth and death of George Rinhart. Probably the same mentioned here, but I am only interested by this picture, taken in France on September 12, 1931. Curiously Getty credits a picture taken at the same time to Douglas Miller. It is the 3rd time I get contradictory authorship in Getty. I wonder if they make up information. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, here is the uncropped image at Getty credited to George Rinhart. --El Grafo (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems like Rinhard is/was more a collector and dealer rather than a a photographer: https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/var.1991.7.1.170 might be interesting but I can't access the fulltext pdf. The April 1981 issue of "Popular Photography" has an Interview with him on page 26 (continued on page 172) [15]. --El Grafo (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
2 more pictures that show him (probably) 1976 1977. --El Grafo (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
And once you start looking for a collector rather than a photographer, you'll immediately start getting more useful search results ([16], [17]). Seems like Getty messed that up … --El Grafo (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, that makes more sense. Seeing his photo, he is not the photographer of this picture (I saw this, but I thought he was someone else). Now what to do with Getty claim? Thanks for looking. I wrote to Getty. We will see. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of possibly incorrectly uploaded image

In 2015 I uploaded the logo of the British political organisation Republic without the text as File:Republic (political organisation) symbol.jpg (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Republic_(political_organisation)_symbol.jpg&oldid=340669713). However, this was before I realised that the image has to be free in its home country as well as the United States in order to be hosted on Commons. I had recently tried adding the speedy deletion template but the tag was removed by User:Wdwd with the summary rev, 'no speedy deletion; If you disagree start a regular DR'. I have uploaded the image to the English Wikipedia as File:Republic_(political_organisation)_symbol_(English_Wikipedia) (see link here [[18]]) so no move is necessary. I was wondering if anyone can help with getting the Commons image removed. Tk420 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tk420: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Republic (political organisation) symbol.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep on Truckin' by Robert Crumb

File:Keep on truckin'... LCCN2017647984.jpg
Keep on truckin... but keep on Commons?

There is some uncertainty regarding the public domain status of the iconic 1960s counter-culture comic strip Keep on Truckin'. Poster images from the Library of Congress have been uploaded here ([[:|.jpg]] and .tif) as {{PD-US-no notice}}. The Wikipedia article Keep on Truckin' (comics) and this 1989 Los Angeles Times article indicate the image was declared public domain by courts in 1976, but the Wiki article, citing a book on legal oddities and trivia, states the decision was overturned in 1977, restoring copyright status (also discussed on this intellectual property blog). Crumb has filed copyright infringement suits against Amazon.com. An image on Commons was previously deleted: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:KeepOnTruckin'.jpg. Thus, the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate the image is not free, but I wanted to fish for other opinions first. --Animalparty (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Animalparty: It needs to be deleted, per the Ninth Circuit decision. Kaldari (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Knowing a copyright of an image when it's uploaded to another site

For this instance, I've seen some Fars News images that are uploaded to other sites like Flickr with the Fars News Agency bar seen below intact.

I know of the Fars copyright template, but the sources is in a different URL. Should it matter even if it's not liked to Fars? Ominae (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Black and white Coke Zero.jpg

Can Commons keep this as licensed based upon what is written in the file's description? The uploader seems to state that there may be some elements of the packaging which might be considered copyrightable in some countries, and that seems to imply that the photo might not be free enough for Commons purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine for the U.S. at least. Possibly some of the dimpled pattern on the righthand bottle would be copyrightable, but that is on the edge, and maybe there is a de minimis graphic or two in there. But most of that is just text, and the base "coca-cola" in script has been used since about 1905 I think. It's fine in the country of origin and the U.S. (since they are the same country), so it's fine for Commons. Other countries, less sure, but the photo is still focusing on the entire bottle, and not the possibly copyrightable portions, so it's not terribly likely even there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated

L.S. Can someone help me with the following isue? I have uploaded this file : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loots_limonade_reclamespeldje.JPG and it is now tagged as a dirivative work! How can i protest against this. I think this picture shows some text and is not in any way original! Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is might be a work of art, or in the US PD-simple. What was the first appearance? If the design was designed more than 70 years ago you are ok for sure. --Hannolans (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I have altered the template, please add more information if you have --Hannolans (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @Hannolans: , it is not a work of art but simply an old advertising pin for a lemonade of he 60's of a small company that disappeared in the 60's as well. It is also not their company logo or so.
Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Ronhjones: , please would you be so kind as to stop tagging my images with this template? The advertsing pins are not copyright protected. The one you did the last time is a flag from a province of the Netherlands and is not copyright protected. The previous one you tagged is no design either but simple text with a colour and thus also not copyright protected. Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status of "Sarajevo Roses"

Looking at new comments (see here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sarajevo Roses) that states that "Sarajevo Roses" are not modern monuments, but only holes made after explosion of mortar shell's colored in red color, it's think it should be discussed here regarding copyright status of such memorial. I agree that those can't be "modern monument" and therefore FoP shouldn't be applied here. For more info about Sarajevo Roses see: Sarajevo Rose. --Smooth O (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I also agree there can't be a copyright on this. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I was about to file an UDR for this, should I? @Yann: Abzeronow (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I wound up creating an undeletion request so interested editors can put their input in the UDR as well. Abzeronow (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
As I was requested to give my opinion: I still fail to see were filling up some holes in the pavement with a different coloured compound falls under the copyright rules that are given to works of art. I even more have problems when I see that compound is breaking away because people use to walk over it. (File:Sarajevo Rose (2).jpg and … (3).jpg). -- 32X (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Mortar shell's explosion causes a fragmentation pattern, that was only filled with red resin. That´s not a work of art.--Superikonoskop (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
We need to avoid preconceptions when deciding what might be a work of art, and allow for w:Conceptual art and w:Minimalism (visual arts). If this telegram is a work of art then filled-in holes in a street could easily be. It probably depends more on on the motivations of the creator than on the physical characteristics of the object. We should apply the precautionary principle and use a wide definition of 'work of art'. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Using aesthetic judgements ("that is ugly, that can't be copyrightable") is bad -- things are copyrightable no matter how artistic they seem. The telegram is a literary work; hard to compare that here. The main issue is was there any human intervention in the resulting shapes -- if not, it's really not copyrightable. Just coloring an existing shape with a single color doesn't really do that either. I don't think there is any way that would get a copyright in the U.S. Europe is also almost certainly the same, unless they consider putting paint on those existing gouges qualifies (when that has apparently been something more like a meme, not reflective of an individual personality), which seems unlikely. In general, we shouldn't be paranoid about copyright and start deleting things that have never been shown to have a copyright under the chance that they might. If a court case gives guidance, great -- then base deletions off that. But I don't think there is need to start expanding the scope of what we consider copyrighted beyond what courts have already shown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Info My undeleton request was successful. Looking at the photographs, I definitely agree that there wasn't anything creative about these "Sarajevo Roses." and thus not copyrightable. Abzeronow (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Video upload question 4

For South Korean three-dimensional computer animated short film “Farewell”

Now here's the fourth time I posted. Last time I was trying else to find any random videos of animated short films somewhere, then I got and watched this one. Also, I looked up there the YouTube channel Kim Jin-hyuk (김진혁) has one video after he made and directed the film.

So, can I upload a video from YouTube into here if any issues? HarvettFox96 (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC), edited on 11:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Since IRC conversation, Benjamin said to me not allowed, and I'll decide to send the OTRS permission directly soon before uploading it here. HarvettFox96 (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC), edited on 06:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
An OTRS permission ticket #2019030310001505 has been ready after I sent.
Apologize anyway, I misled the title called “Forever” instead of “Farewell”, and I'd felt now being very mindless and worse. HarvettFox96 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC), edited on 13:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging to @Jeff G.: Could you explain this? HarvettFox96 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@HarvettFox96: Did the following artists release their work as CC-BY-2.0 or CC-BY-3.0?
  • Music by: Kim Seo yeon
  • Sound by : Yang jungwon(studio inbloom)
If so, please indicate that fact and how you know it, the YouTube URL, and the Commons URL in your reply to the ticket.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Not yet. I don't think both elements would be CC BY 3.0 instead. HarvettFox96 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@HarvettFox96: So why did you attempt to license their contributions "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported"? Also, please never again change the posts of others, especially me, without permission.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @廣九直通車.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Well... he didn't respond it here. HarvettFox96 (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/02&oldid=359240341"