User talk:Clindberg/archives 9

Re:

hi, thank you for your information, but I'm not that user locked in spite of identical file uploads, I just want the deleted uploads of those users to be restored, in good copyright licenses--Kailsers (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You say "looking at these files", but you are not an admin, so you can't see them (like me) unless you were the original uploader ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

For your answers there Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/12#Uraa_help_page and happy new year--Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

president.az

Hello If possible, look at it: [1] --►Cekli829 12:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

File:US-CIMMS-Logo.svg

File:US-CIMMS-Logo.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Esummars (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

photo of a person taken without their consent

Dear Admin, I found you on the talk page of this article : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nicole_Brenez_-_The_Image_You_Missed_-_IFFR_2018-1.jpg has been taken without the consent of the person. the author knows but she published it anyway on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Brenez

I've started a talk page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Nicole_Brenez_-_The_Image_You_Missed_-_IFFR_2018-1.jpg but I really don't know what to do next Thomas Louis Jacques Schmitt --2A01:CB04:83F:D100:43C:CD46:5414:92EE 21:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything per policy that would require deletion. By U.S. law, virtually positive there is no problem there. Even by Netherlands and French law (which we would not necessarily use), at least given the descriptions on the page you found, it would appear to be a photo of a public figure at a public event, publication of which is usually allowed from the looks of it. We are not lawyers here though, and there are many aspects to such cases, so we are never fully sure. You could file a deletion request/review if there is a particular, non-obvious reason why the subject wants the photo deleted, and the community would weigh the request. You could also contact the photographer; if the photographer/uploader joins in the request to have it deleted, it would be a much stronger request. I would guess though that a request to have it deleted just because the subject doesn't like it would fail, at least without the photographer agreeing. For example, https://www.gettyimages.com/license/82688589 would appear to be a photo of the subject at a different public event. Not sure why the photo here would be any less legal than that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A contrary UK case (and exceptional even in Britain) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm Thincat (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That was not a public event. The UK definitely allows more photos in public, but you can understand that particular case. The photo in question though appears to be the subject standing at a publicity setup at a film festival. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Expertise needed – suspicious move

Hello.
As an ardent detractor of Romanisation on Commons, could you investigate what is was recently File:蘆洲－忠孝新生列車.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log)? The history currently is here. Walking to you directly because the person who effected the move has a long record of whitewashing his user_talk. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, can't say I would agree with that move. Unfortunately lots of times moves will just be approved with bogus reasons -- especially if the reviewer can't read the filename in question. Given Google Translate, it wasn't the best name before, but it was probably good enough, and it almost seems over specific now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No source = speedy?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Eliza_Acton_1799-1859.png&oldid=prev&diff=288027343

I'm confused. No source is speedy? I know {{Copyvio}} and {{Speedydelete}} are speedy. No source is too? I just discovered the "No author" template, I suppose that's another possibilty so now I added that. - Alexis Jazz 03:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "no source" is a speedy deletion template. As is "no permission" and "no license". There are also cases where we don't need a source to determine copyright status, so for those the tag shouldn't be used even if there is no source. "No author" is not a speedy delete, though "unknown" and "anonymous" are valid authors as well and it's probably best to just use those instead for a photo like that. I'm on the edge of nominating the photo for regular deletion -- it may be out of scope now that we know it's of a different non-notable person, though any photo that old may be of interest, and there is a chance it is still under the UK 25-year publication right. On the other hand, there may be value in keeping it with a correct identification if there are misidentified versions out there. The date would be before 1879 as well, as that is when Julia Eliza Northey Hopkins/Shum died. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how we can tell which ID is correct. Or maybe even both are wrong. The site that says Julia Eliza does look more credible and has a higher quality image, but what is the reason the poet site identifies her as Eliza Acton? - Alexis Jazz 18:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry about the picture for Trump-Kim Meeting

Hi talk:Clindberg,

Thank you for your kind guide, Would it possible to remove the notice from the picture source above? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Paintings by Edward Hopper

Hi Carl,

Could you please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Edward Hopper. He is an American painter, so the date of death is not sufficient to determine the copyright status. Thanks in advance, Yann (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Portrait drawings

Quick question, if you have time, about copyright in portrait illustrations. If you look in Google Images for 'nyt portrait illustrations', you will get lots of the NYT portraits. My question is whether people like Jillian Tamaki are drawing their portrait illustrations from life, or from reference photographs? If they are using reference photographs, are they creating derivative works, or are they carefully combining elements from different photographs to create something that is indisputably new (and avoiding infringing copyright of the photographs - presuming the photographs were not provided for them by the NYT)? Examples are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. You can see an array of these sort of illustrations here. A bit of an insight into the process here (from a different illustrator): "I was asked by the NYT to draw Glenn Beck for the cover of the Sunday magazine - apparently, he wasn't going to sit down for a photo-shoot with the Times and so they had to hire an illustrator for their big profile." Jillian Tamaki's portrait gallery is here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yikes. That can depend on the details of how it was made, so courts would get into those details for each case. You would have to identify copied expression from a source photograph in order for it to be derivative. For photographs, that is not necessarily the subject, but the angle, framing, and that sort of thing. For portrait photos, that can include the specific pose of the subject, or a facial expression evoked. If you can identify one specific photograph that was the source, it is probably in the dangerous area -- the angle at least was likely copied. If several photos are used for reference of what a person looks like, but an original pose and angle are used by the artist, it is probably not derivative. It can get more interesting with something like the New York Times, which probably has licenses to use say AP images, so they could possibly print a derivative of an AP image even if others could not. While it did not reach an actual decision, all signs in the Obama "Hope" poster were basically heading to a derivative work violation (which was not fair use), as one example. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will point to this from the deletion discussion. I hope it will be possible to encourage and guide such efforts, even if the images in question mostly get deleted. The ideal outcome would be that we end up with usable portrait representations that Commons will accept. Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Carl, I took the liberty to add an archiving command at the top of your talk page. Please edit as needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Closed UDR

Hello. Please read this: [2] [3]. --Turbojet (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Turbojet: Yes, I saw that. I think we may still be talking past each other :-) I can accept that architect's derivative right did not exist before 1996, and that the photographer's part of the copyright expired by 1996 and was not prolonged. The architect's copyright still existed in 1996 and was prolonged. By "non-retroactive", that generally means just the *term* aspect of the copyright -- anything expired stays expired. But the architectural copyright did not expire, so if the architect gained new rights in 1996, those rights may exist going forward from 1996. Article 146 of the 1996 law seems to explicitly say that is the case. In that case, even though the photographic copyright is gone, the derivative right of the architect was created any may cover any act of exploitation since 1996. If so, that would preclude us from uploading here. But it's also possible that the law intended it to only apply to new works, such that the new right would not extend to works already existing. I'm not entirely sure. Article 146 seems to be very explicit, that going forward architects' rights are those in the new law. But I also don't see much in the way of parts of the law which deal with people currently exploiting works which suddenly be OK -- so there may not have been any of those. So I can also see that any existing exploitations would be allowed to continue. The question would be a new exploitation of an old work which would otherwise fall under a derivative copyright -- for article 149(1), would the new exploitation be a new "legal act" (meaning the architect's new rights apply), or is the simple fact the photo existed earlier be the legal act, and any exploitation of it going forward is OK and would not involve the architect's rights? That part is not clear to me, and may have been enough of an edge case that the law did not deal with it directly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not like such discussions, which according to a Romanian saying "split the hair in four". The principle of Romanian law was and is that what once became free and could be taken over and used by another cannot be taken back. No legal action may be taken to prevent the use of such material.

This was actually the problem with the "not" particle of Law 8/1996 that was said to be missing. Without that "not", the law would have been retroactive. It turned out that the formulation was incompatible. Then that "not" was added, which gave the law a completely different meaning, but compatible. The lawyers of Romanian Parliament did not want to admit that they initially blundered and said that the particle "not" was just missing. The situation was significant from the point of view of retroactivity.

Maybe I will be willing to resume the discussion after a while. That if you did not refuse her resumption, as Jim refused. Meanwhile, I will deal with the clarification of these issues, but not here. I know that the administrators here do not like to change their decisions. --Turbojet (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:S.M. Il re sventola il tricolore dal Quirinale.png

hi Mr. Clindberg

I'm writing to ask you if you could pass me this file that I send you on request in COM:UDR, (unfortunately I am not allowed to make the request personally, because it would be, first boycotted, and finally denied, the administrators have assured me that they would evaluate the following deleted files only exposed exclusively by other self-validating users. and so I would like to take this opportunity, if I can afford to ask you this humble favor, "in the hope that this request will be accepted and evaluated). This file is a cover created by Achille Beltrame (1871–1945). the following cover was made around 1915, right in the period of the First World War.--87.0.97.35 18:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Califpaint

Hi Carl, Most of these artists are from the US, but the publication dates are not mentioned. May be you could help here. Thanks a lot in advance. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: File:Alaska-StateSeal.svg

Hi Clindberg, many thanks for the notice and I understand your concern. The new vectorized rendition of the state seal of Alaska is my own work, and I have uploaded it under File:State Seal of Alaska.svg. The origional upload has been reverted. Best regards --Ericmetro (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

nationalgalleries.org

Hi there, quick question about PD-old portrait images if you've got a moment.

I'm going through Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Stephencdickson and uploading some of the originals. File:Dr Henry Marshall by Stephen C Dickson, after Daniel Macnee.jpg is based on a portrait at https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/3202/0/henry-marshall-1775-1851-physician-and-military-hygienist which is only released by that website as CC-by-NC. Is it acceptable to take a copy for Commons anyway, ignoring the CC and instead marking it as pd-old?

(Searching for the nationalgalleries.org URL across commons, it seems to been used as a source of other portraits, eg. File:AnneBayne.jpg.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Commons ignores a potential UK copyright over the digital reproduction, based on a U.S. court case -- see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. So {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1882}} would be the license. If you are in the UK, UK law could apply to your actions uploading, but the CC-BY-NC license should cover that. I don't think there is an easy way to mention that license, but you could do that in text. I'm not sure their high-resolution downloads are covered by that license, though Commons would accept those as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the pointers. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Money of India

Hi Carl, Do you think we can now undelete Commons:Deletion requests/Money of India2 and Commons:Deletion requests/Money of India. If {{GODL-India}} applies to all works made by the Indian government, it also should apply to banknotes, isn't? According to Jee, the Indian Penal Code 489E prohibits "making or using documents resembling currency-notes or bank-notes". I would interpret that as "printed documents". What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Clindberg,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Textlogo

Could you take a look at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:Marvel's Avengers Battle for Earth.jpg direct image link? I think it's PD-textlogo. But if EugeneZelenko, De728631 and Yann are right when they say it's not, I think it'll be a good example for COM:TOO of something that is over the US TOO. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated the link.. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: While that is mostly 3-D text, and some geometrical shapes, and shading... not sure I have seen something quite that elaborate ruled uncopyrightable by the U.S. Copyright Office. The closest I can find at the review board rulings is the Blackberry logo[4], which has some shading but not to the extent in that Avengers logo. The latter is not one simple gradient, and there are a number of elements which could as a whole end up with a selection and arrangement copyright (though barely, if so). While not impossible that it's below the threshold, I would probably side on precautionary deletion for now. We have a wealth of examples from the Copyright Office (which has, very occasionally, been overruled by courts), so I would definitely not recommend using something as an example which exceeds the type of work we see from the Copyright Office directly. We should probably stick with just those as U.S. examples, rather than Commons deletion decisions, since we have quite a number of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. COM:TOO does list enough examples of what is OK, but a few more cases (preferably edge cases) of what is not okay would be helpful. But I agree it's best to stick to official rulings whenever possible. Btw, the text isn't really 3D, is it? Dropshadows don't equal 3D. It is made to look like it has depth, but unlike the Minecraft logo, you couldn't view this from any other angle. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a small 3-D effect there to me, but there are examples of 3-D lettering still being ruled uncopyrightable by the office, so that alone isn't enough to me. There are a couple of examples in the appeals of works which were decided to be copyrightable, but (naturally) we can't host those so they are harder to use as an example :-) But look at the ruling of the Car Credit City logo; that source has an example which *was* ruled copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

PD Austria 1932

Hello! I have a quick question: A 1928 photograph is {{PD-Austria-1932}}, do you think it is necessary to add {{PD-1996}} as well? Thanks for your input!

Hi Clindberg. You were quite helpful in sorting out Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/10#File:Kfc taco bell.jpg, so I'm wondering if you have an opinion on COM:VPC#File:Starbucks store.jpg since it's sort of similar to the "KFC Taco Bell" discussion, but at the same time there also seem to be some important differences. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

MapChart.net

Could you provide some guidance to the founder of MapChart.net about rewriting his terms of use? See his reply here:

• Commons talk:Threshold of originality#MapChart.net

I had contacted him via his site's feedback form, and he replied by email. I suggested he leave a note at the above link so that he could be advised by the experts. I am not an expert. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Bassano Ltd files from the NPG

Hi, Carl Lindberg. I read your comment here and so was surprised to see the file kept without any consideration for its US copyright. On the strength of that decision, the uploader has now requested that all of the Bassano Ltd files s/he uploaded be undeleted, and has garnered unexpected support. However, it seems to me that only those that were PD in the UK as of the URAA date are eligible for undeletion. Am I missing something? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Happy New Year! --Rrburke (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be an argument between User:Jcb (who seems to dislike all of the EU anonymous tags and will often delete even though works clearly seem to qualify) and User:Yann (who will undelete those but also often ignores URAA-restored status when doing so). Both generally good admins, particularly Yann, but they have those particular points of view and likely no budging them. Anything published before 1926 should be OK for Bassano stuff though, if no authors are named. The prints are often fine, but the ones based on the negatives donated in 1974 get more difficult for me unless there is some other indication of making available to the public. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. A great many of the files in Category:Bassano Ltd are later than 1926. It's not clear to me how the issue of their URAA-restored US copyrights can simply be disregarded. --Rrburke (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It was disregarded for a time (when there was a pending case before the Supreme Court), so we didn't delete them but instead added the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag, though after the ruling we are supposed to apply it (provided we have documented what the actual terms were on Jan 1 1996; for example France did not extend to 70pma until 1997). But the UK is pretty straightforward; they restored their stuff the same day as the URAA. However, a couple admins still prefer the policy we had during the court case, even though it's been years now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Aph.John Curtin Official Portrait.png

Hi, Carl. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the copyright status of this 1947 official portrait of Australian Prime Minister John Curtin by Antonio Dattilo Rubbo (1870-1955). As with other official portraits, presumably it was commissioned by Australia's Historic Memorials Committee. As a work created "under the direction or control of, the Commonwealth or a State"[5], I further presume it is subject to Crown copyright. In that case, if it was ever published, its Australian copyright expired in 1998, fifty years after its creation[6]. If it wasn't ever published, then, as I understand it, it was copyrighted right up to January 1, 2019, when the provisions in the Copyright Amendment Act 2017 regarding unpublished works came into effect, rescinding their indefinite copyright[7].

I'm less confident about its US copyright. In the case that it was never published, I presume it doesn't qualify as a "work made for hire" because its creator is an independent contractor and not an employee under the general common law of agency, and it also doesn't fall under any of the other definitions of a work made for hire under 17 U.S.C. § 101. Is the term then 70pma even though the creator was never the copyright holder?

And if it has been published (abroad only, without compliance with US formalities), is its US term 95 years after publication date if publication was before 1978, and 70pma if after? --Rrburke (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Australian Crown Copyright artistic works which are not photographs or engravings last 50 years from creation, with no provision for publication. Subject to the next succeeding subsection [regarding engravings and photographs], copyright in an artistic work of which the Commonwealth or a State is the owner, or would, but for an agreement to which the last preceding section applies, be the owner, continues to subsist until the expiration of 50 years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the work was made. Literary, dramatic, and musical works (when Crown Copyright) explicitly say they retain infinite copyright when unpublished. Crown Copyright engravings and photographs say they are protected 50 years from publication, I guess implying that unpublished ones keep copyright. Australia is aggressive about converting stuff to Crown Copyright -- anything made under direction of the government, or even first published under direction of the government, become Crown. The UK did away with that stuff in their 1988 Act but looks like Australia still has them, and certainly did in 1947. If it is Crown Copyright, {{PD-AustraliaGov}} says their copyright expires worldwide, so it would be effective PD-author for the United States I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Thomas Hart Benton - Achelous and Hercules - Smithsonian.jpg

File:Thomas Hart Benton - Achelous and Hercules - Smithsonian.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juan Guaidó restored version.jpg

Hi. I would appreciate your input at the subject page.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

File:It's a Wonderful Life (1946) .webm

Hello, as you may know, the film lapsed in the public domain by lack of renewal but the original story and the music are still in copyright (see e.g. [8]). Do you think we can keep it? Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 14:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No. At the very least it's still a derivative work of a book, and you need a license from the book's copyright owner, until 2035. Music is likely in a similar situation. Stills from the movie, fine, but not the whole thing, or any portion which incorporates more than a fair use amount of the story and/or music (to avoid infringement anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that Vimeo took down the source video as a result of DMCA complaint by Paramount: [9], [10]. clpo13_(talk) 16:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 18:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Datawrapper.de

I need an expert opinion again.

Is the answer in this section of their FAQ sufficient to meet the requirement for a free image license acceptable by the Commons?:

• https://www.datawrapper.de/faq/#can-i-use-my-charts-in-a-commercial-product-or-publication

I have been communicating by email with them. I asked them to stop by here. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This is David from Datawrapper - let me know in case there's anything we can do to clarify the copyright/licensing questions regarding graphics created with the tool. We'd be very happy to see it in use here. -- David — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.151.187.212 (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: Hey, thanks for the note. I may not have time to look at this in-depth for a few days, maybe until new year. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this yet? :) --Timeshifter (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: (and David from data wrapper) :-) -- In looking, the terms seem OK for charts, as the FAQ notes that the users own the full copyright to the charts, meaning there is no copyrightable expression from datawrapper in the result, so the users can license things as they wish.

Just to point out though, I believe that also means that datawrapper has no grounds to sue anyone other than the user of the site, who presumably agreed to the terms of service, which is a contract between datawrapper and that person specifically. If that person offers something under a free license, they really cannot further enjoin other users who use it from Commons. So, enforcing the "Created with Datawrapper" may be difficult or impossible. The user could make that part of the information they want reproduced as part of their Creative Commons terms I suppose, but in the past Commons has preferred to remove watermarks from the image itself and put the information on the image page (see Commons:Watermarks). There is a court case in Germany which ruled that doing so with a copyright notice violated the Creative Commons license, but (given the other rights to modify stuff given in the licenses) it's not clear that would be true everywhere. Secondly, the Created with Datawrapper is not related to copyright, so it's not really part of a copyright-protection scheme. The uploader could mandate that "Created with Datawrapper" at least be on the image page, but that is up to the uploader. If something allegedly violates the terms of the contract, that is between datawrapper and that user -- Commons would generally keep the uploads unless the uploader themselves asked to change something. Commons cares just about the copyright specifically, which it sounds like datawrapper would have no rights to, in the case of charts.

When it comes to maps, datawrapper almost certainly does own copyright in parts of the maps. Users may have a contractual ability to use their derivative works per what they have paid for (or terms of service when they have not), but anyone else would have no more than a fair use right for them. So, I don't think those can be licensed freely for upload here, unless datawrapper makes such downloaded content available under a free license themselves (such as CC-BY-SA). I don't see anything like that in the FAQ or the site terms (which is of course perfectly understandable). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I sent an email to David at Datawrapper.

The discussion at Commons talk:Threshold of originality#MapChart.net is relevant for map copyrights.

CC-BY might work better for Datawrapper's interest in getting its name out there. Attribution (the BY part) would be required. Though that attribution could be satisfied with a link back to Datawrapper.de from the image description page here on the Commons. I could make another template similar to this one: {{Mapchart.net}}. This would allow users at Datawrapper, or here on the Commons, to do anything they want with derivative images as long as they attribute the original image to Datawrapper.

CC-BY versus CC-BY-SA. The 2 Creative Commons (CC) licenses accepted here on the Commons.

The 2 templates are much easier to understand: Template:Cc-by-4.0 and Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

(unindent). I haven't heard anything further from Datawrapper other than a form email reply saying they got my last couple emails.

@Clindberg: What do you think of this template: {{Datawrapper.de}}

See this search for Datawrapper on the Commons. With one exception it only pulls up maps. So this template may encourage more Datawrapper chart uploads to the Commons, and may prevent admins from mistakenly deleting them.

@JSutherland (WMF): Those Datawrapper map pages from 2016 have this: "Created with DataWrapper.de, which makes use of the MIT License."

Where is that found at Datawrapper.de?

And the actual license used on the Commons for those maps is {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: Thanks for catching this. I honestly do not remember if that was directly listed on their website since this was three years ago now. :) They still license their code under MIT on Github, but they did not require the use of any particular license in the final product as far as I can see. (Edit: I see you already said that above, sorry for my redundancy) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(unindent). @JSutherland (WMF): and @Clindberg: I think we should go with a broad interpretation of their terms of service. Broad as in we should take the word "chart" to also mean "map". The key factor in both {{Mapchart.net}} and {{Datawrapper.de}} is that both sites have now clearly said to us both on their site and here on the Commons that users own the copyright of the created image. One site insists the user use CC-BY-SA, and the other site allows the user to choose the image license.

From Datawrapper.de terms of service.:

Can I use my charts in a commercial product or publication? Yes, you have the full copyright to your charts. Even charts created with a Single 10k or Single Flat account can be embedded in commercial products – just make sure to keep the label “Created with Datawrapper” that you can find below your charts.

See Merriam-Webster definition of chart. I think this solves the problem, and gives users of the site permission to use whatever image license they want for charts, graphs, and maps that they create. All of which are covered by the standard broad definition of "chart".:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chart

chart noun
\ ˈchärt
\
Definition of chart

 (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : map: such as
a : an outline map exhibiting something (such as climatic or magnetic variations) in its geographical aspects
b : a map for the use of navigators
2a : a sheet giving information in tabular form
b : graph
c : diagram
d : a sheet of paper ruled and graduated for use in a recording instrument
e : a record of medical information about a patient
f : a listing by rank (as of sales) —usually used in plural number one on the charts— Tim Cahill
3 : a musical arrangement also : a part in such an arrangement

chart verb
charted; charting; charts

Definition of chart (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb
1 : to lay out a plan for chart a course
2 : to make a map or chart of chart the coastline
3 : chronicle the book charts the last years of his life

intransitive verb
: to be ranked on a chart the song charted for three months

I updated {{Datawrapper.de}}.

I sent a longer email to hello@datawrapper.de about this latest discussion on maps, and the broader meaning of "charts" in their terms of service. I got that email address from here:

• https://www.datawrapper.de/about-us --Timeshifter (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: I don't think their statement gives us the right to use maps. Their FAQ constantly mentions "charts and maps" as separate things, and the free-to-use statement just mentions charts, which is probably intentionally keeping maps out of it. Plus, I think charts vs maps would be separate per copyright law, regardless of the MW definition. So I don't think there is anything in copyright law giving downloaders any rights, nor do I think their FAQ can be read in a way to infer they intended to license them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Datawrapper clarifies map copyrights in their FAQ

(unindent). @Clindberg: I just looked at my email, and David of Datawrapper replied and said this a few hours ago:

thanks a lot for moving this forward. Yes, we mean "charts" as "including charts and maps". We have updated our FAQ to make this more explicit: https://www.datawrapper.de/faq/#can-i-use-my-charts-or-maps-in-a-commercial-product-or-publication Let me know in case there are any other questions.

I thought this might be the case, but I wasn't sure, and so I am glad it is clarified. Also, it is a Germany-based company, and I remember having discussions with German editors on the Commons about their usage of the terms for diagrams, charts, infographics, etc., and how it is not the same as our use in English. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, the permission given by Datawrapper.de is broader than that of Mapchart.net. Datawrapper says "Yes, you have the full copyright to your charts and maps." Mapchart, on their feedback page, says: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License."

Datawrapper lets the user do anything they want with their charts and maps, or pick any license they want, as long as attribution is given. This fits their business model since many in the news media create maps and charts there, and don't want to share with the competition. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I updated {{Datawrapper.de}} and added it to Commons:Map resources. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Technically, that statement is the only license they give for their maps. I guess that is something like {{Attribution}}, but they did not explicitly give a Creative Commons license, so unsure that should be mentioned or implied. I would repeat more of the exact wording of their FAQ entry, especially the exact credit line they want. Their license is more nebulous, so there is more room to debate the particulars (can you make derivative works of their maps, i.e. use their outlines in stuff not created by their site, etc.). But on the face of it, seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I updated and clarified {{Datawrapper.de}} further. I added {{Attribution}} too. Feel free to update it more. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I added Datawrapper.de to the online chart creation site list on this page:

Commons:Create charts and graphs online. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Japanese toy cars in original packaging

Hi Clindberg. You seem to venture over to English Wikipedia every now and then, so I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at en:WP:MCQ#File:Tomica Dandy.jpg. There are quite a number of non-free photos of toy cars being used in the article en:Tomica. en:Takara Tomy is a Japanese company, and toys seem to be considered to be utilitarian objects in Japan, so, not all of these files may need to be treated as non-free. Moreover, if the only reason they are non-free is because of the copyright on the photo itself, then those files cannot be kept per en:WP:FREER. Now, some of the cars may incorporate other copyrighted character imagery not originating with Takara Tomy and there may be some issues with COM:Packaging, but in some cases the latter might be incidental or otherwise de minimis. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Flute Quartet No. 1 in D Major - 3. Rondeau - Allegro.ogg

Hello, I wonder if performers rights apply to this post 1972 recording. What do you think? Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 10:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: The United States is not party to the Rome Convention, so the standard "performer's rights" do not apply. 17 USC 1101 was added in 1994, but that is more about unauthorized recordings of performers (and this was presumably authorized). It also only applies to acts from sometime in 1994 and forward. Being a post-1972 recording, that eliminates most state common-law concerns (which got a bit more fuzzy for pre-1972 works after a ruling a few years ago, though not sure to the level of deletion here). The copyright in the sound recording is separate from that in the lyrics and music, and while performers can have some of those rights, it is typically resolved in whatever contract the recording company makes when making the (authorized) recording. Usually the record company holds the rights to the recording itself, so if they licensed it, it should be fine I think. Pandora Records should be mentioned as an "author" though, since this is a sound recording, so they have authorship in that. Also, it looks like the license on the source site is here, which is version 1 of the OAL (i.e. {{OAL-1}}), and technically not version 2 (which is the one equivalent to CC-BY-SA-2.0). I think re-users can use either version of the OAL license (so the given one is also correct), but we could add the OAL-1 tag as well. Whether other countries would grant performer's rights when the source country does not, less sure. But I don't think there is an issue here. If the orchestra itself makes a claim here and provides some new information (such as a detail of their original contract) that could change things, but I think the presumption would be that the recording label had the rights to license things the way they did. It definitely a rare thing for a U.S. sound recording to be OK on Commons :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 16:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of the U.S. Navy (1864–1959).svg

File:Flag of the U.S. Navy (1864–1959).svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

– Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Seal of the United States Department of the Navy (alternate).svg

Copyright status: File:Seal of the United States Department of the Navy (alternate).svg Jcb (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Had a typo in the license template, so it didn't show up, sorry about that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ccopyright of old UK pictures

Hi Carl, There are several discussions about copyright of old pictures from the United Kingdom, VPC, AN, here, and here. It would be great if you could add your opinion. Thanks in advance. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

WMDE and accreditatiion

Do you remember when you said "Basically, you are claiming that Wikimedia Germany knowingly set up a situation where they could not legally upload their works to Commons. I seriously doubt that is the case."? Please see Template:2018-08-19 BFC Dynamo vs. 1. FC Köln. The first box states:

This picture was taken holding an accreditation for the DFB-Pokal. While the photographer is providing the work under the terms of a Creative Commons license which allows commercial reuse, the accreditation rules contain the obligation to point out the following: Pictures may only be used for editorial publications.

I know better than to poke that hornet's nest again, but I think that template should clarify the situation with WMDE and where they stand. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, it's almost certainly just restricting uses to non-promotional use (i.e. uses where publicity or personality rights are not required), when you read further. That is fine -- publicity rights are separate from the copyright, and promotional use would require obtaining those rights from someone. Really, the personality rights template should be enough to satisfy that requirement. I really don't like that particular wording though, since it does seem to imply the copyright is being used to enforce that requirement as well, which would make it non-free. That is similar wording to the original Commons:Deletion requests/User:Stepro/UEFA discussion (though that also had an "online" requirement), where the wording was changed eventually to remove the unintended implication. This template should probably be re-worded similarly, and we should also double-check with the photographer to make sure that change matches their understanding. It's most likely fine, and deletion requests are pretty aggressive so I wouldn't recommend that, but wouldn't hurt to bring that up in the Village Pump, noting the similarity to the UEFA template and asking for similar changes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I can tell that you like to assume the best in people. Having now seen several accreditation agreements, it seems standard for these events that they do indeed restrict the use of images to editorial use only. We come back to the same argument that this is the photographer's problem, not Commons. I am certain that no one will be willing to tell me what the accreditation agreement says. Feel free to bring it up at Village Pump yourself if you wish. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The copyright is owned by the photographer (or their employer if any) -- the organizations can only control things via contract with the photographer themselves, or publicity rights they can exercise as part of promoting their sport. A contract is quite difference than a license. If one party or the other breaches the contract, the parties can only go after each other -- nobody else agreed to that contract and so nobody else can violate it. For those organizations, the publicity rights may be of greater concern, and they would use terms in context of those rights which sounds rather problematic when thinking in terms of copyright, which is what we tend to do (in particular the term "commercial use" has very different connotations). The organizations may well be releasing the publicity rights they own only for editorial use, without thinking much of the copyright -- even though we don't really care if they release any or not. The leagues are probably more concerned with restricting based on what *they* are allowed to do, since collectively-bargaining agreements often will spell out what the league is allowed to do for marketing purposes, versus what rights a players' association can sell, versus what rights you need to go to the player themselves (such as promoting products). In general, yes we assume good faith, particularly when it comes to Wikimedia chapters, who would usually be very aware of copyright issues in anything they do. They quite likely would come to a special agreement which match Wikimedia's purposes and not sign the typical agreement if there are problematic clauses in the latter. In the UEFA case, it turned out to simply be a poor choice of words, with the UEFA simply making sure the photos could not be used to promote products based on their publicity rights permission (since they don't have the rights to allow that) -- in other words, they were using terms in relation to personality rights, while we were thinking in terms of copyright, which has a different meaning. If the photographer is OK changing the wording to make it clear the terms "editorial use" was just in relation to publicity rights, it should be fine -- they know what they signed. I do agree that the wording can be misinterpreted, and there is a small chance that it could be an actual copyright problem (the photographer using his copyright to enforce a contract), and it would be best to get it clarified. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand your argument, I just don't agree that Commons should allow images which were taken with the understanding that the use would be restricted. I feel it is unethical for those photographers to claim CC licenses and for Commons to turn a blind eye. I know that I may be alone in that view. And I do not share your confidence that there were special terms negotiated. Other than that, I think we agree. :) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Use can always be restricted by trademark and publicity rights -- the status of "free" is dependent purely on the copyright. We have always allowed those restrictions. For these templates, the restrictions on "editorial use" of UEFA etc. have *only* been about the publicity rights, and nothing at all to do with the copyright. It's no different than having the {{Personality rights}} template on an image. This one is almost certain the same situation, though the wording should be changed as it could easily be misconstrued. UEFA etc. own none of the copyrights, but they do own a limited set of publicity rights in order to promote the game, and they probably have a responsibility to make sure that any permission they give not be construed to go beyond the bounds of the publicity rights they do have, which is probably the reason for these clauses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright discussions

Hi Carl, thank you for your answer regarding the infamous Flickr Public Domain Mark. Would you mind have a look at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#News_in_Argentina and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Freddy eduardo. They're not related to PD-Mark but in both cases extensions of the copyright exceptions in Argentina and Ecuador are proposed. The first one with extremely weak arguments (IMHO) and with some merit in the second. Your opinion would be welcome (it's actually a Flickr Public Domain Mark case with an explicit PD fallback license; I don't share the interpretation of the Ecuador law either). Thanks in advance --Discasto _talk 06:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Snapchat

Why do you think the Snapchat logo passes the threshold of originality? Benjamin (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which discussion you are referring to, but the ghost is not a simple, standard shape. Someone else drawing a ghost is unlikely to get the same exact contours in the outline. And to the point, there is a copyright registration by Snapchat titled "Ghost Design" (VA0002014816), so it would appear the copyright office determined it was copyrightable as well. The deposit says it was authored by Evan Thomas Spiegel and transferred to the company. That would match up with the reports that he drew the logo in his college dorm room, so that registration is most likely for the logo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Clindberg/archives 9,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

UDR

If you wish to help us, eg. in UDR, it would be great honour for me to nominate you in RfA. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Clindberg/archives 9,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Picture of the month

Hello Clindberg, one of your uploads is the present German picture of the month. Greetings --Ein Dahmer (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Clindberg/archives 9,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

C-SPAN

Hello, do you see a problem uploading a video such as this one under {{PD-CSPAN}} in view of this? Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 13:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I think that C-SPAN claims ownership of stuff recorded at hearings etc. Only stuff recorded from the House or Senate floor is done by government cameras and is PD-USGov. As the tag says, "This does not apply to Committee Hearings or other C-SPAN copyrighted material; such content is free only for non-commercial use." Is the video you link a hearing, or was it on the Senate floor? It looks to be just a hearing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, unfortunately. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 15:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Photos of smartphones

Hi Clindberg. I'm wondering if you might be able to possibly clarify something for me. There was recently a question posted at en:WP:THQ#Official product images for phone about someone who downloaded photos of a smartphone from the Internet and then uploaded to Commons as their "own work". I'm pretty sure that's not really going to be something that Commons is going to allow simply because the uploader is trying to release someone else's photo under a free license and is mistakenly believing that they can do so because the photos are fair use. The thing is that some of the responses given to that post are suggesting that the uploader simply needs to take their own photo of the phone and upload that for every thing to be A-OK. However, I'm not so sure that's the case and that things might be more complicated than that.

I get that the shape of the phone itself is utilitarian enough to most likely not be something considered eligible for copyright protection, but I think there may be other copyrightable elements (the images appearing on the screen, any artistic design features or logos, etc.) that might need to be considered in addition to the copyright of the photo. I took a look at Category:Smartphones and it seems not too rare for people to basically be holding their phone in one hand and taking a picture with the other, or leaning their photo up against something (like the box it came in) and photographing that, but I'm not sure all of those photos are ones that should've been uploaded to Commons. I, of course, could be the one who's overthinking this; so, I'm wondering are they any concerns even for those taking their own photos of something like a smartphone. For example, I can't just assume that if I take a photo of my computer screen, an album cover, a book cover, etc. that there are no copyright concerns other than those of the photo I have just taken. Same goes for taking photos of package labeling, etc. So, it would seem that there would also be similar concerns when it comes to something like a smartphone.

I apologize for just showing up on your user talk page out of the blue, but I thought you'd be a good person to ask about something like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

We have deleted when such photos include the computer screen portion which is prominently showing a copyrighted app with complicated graphics. Whether that is actually derivative or not is on the edges of copyright law -- not sure I've seen a case like that. In general your own photos should be OK, especially if the device is off. It's possible there could be a derivative work, if you are intentionally including some copyrighted element or are really focusing on the screen itself, but I would imagine most such photos are OK, so the guidance sounds like it is more or less on the right track. Much of the time such other elements would be de minimis or incidental (logos on the device itself should be fine). I would be careful of when the phone is running an app though, that's all, and what stuff you are intentionally including that wasn't really necessary for the photo. One common thing is to just show the phone looking at a Wikipedia screen, for example, or just turn it off. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'm assuming that something like File:Android One X4.jpg is going to be certainly OK, and that most likely File:Saulo-mohana-77106-unsplash.jpg this as well. What about something like File:Elegant Smart Phone.png (which doesn't seem like a "own work" photo), File:Qtmoko v26 Main.png (which is more of a screenshot than picture of a phone), File:Shift 6m.jpg (which might be a picture of a picture as well as a phone), and File:Honor 8A.png (which partially includes packaging). FWIW, I'm not trying to get you to play whack-the-copyvio here; just trying to gain a better understanding in case a similar question is posed over on English Wikipedia by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

First one, agreed -- seems like a product photo that is taken from Amazon (link disallowed). If the photo was fine... tougher call, though if that is some sort of default screen saver, not sure. Second one is basically a screenshot, but of a GPL program, so should be OK. Third one does seem to be focusing on the image as well, though that particular leaf image seems to be a phone background image plastered over tons of free download sites, so ... who knows. Last one dances over a bunch of borderlines, so you'd probably get arguments each way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking a look. I've DR'd the first image, but left the others as is since they may be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing the description of File:The Mickey Mouse Club Mouseketeers Sharon Baird 1956.jpg

On the basis of this edit to the description for File:The Mickey Mouse Club Mouseketeers Annette Funicello 1956.jpg, I made the same edit to the description for File:The Mickey Mouse Club Mouseketeers Sharon Baird 1956.jpg. --Gazebo (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Carl, I just wanted to add a quick note that despite the fact I disagree with you, I respect you nonetheless. I can see you have thought through the issue we are discussing, and so if my tone is at all off, this is entirely something I should apologise for. Please let me know if this is the case and I will make amends/correct my behaviour. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it's fine :-) Hopefully my tone is also read as being just as respectful. I think we just have very different interpretations of "craftsmanship" -- I can't see where you get yours, and I guess you can't see where I get mine :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Haha :-) actually, your tone is amazingly civil and you have completely stuck to the facts as you understand them. My respect for you knows no bounds in that you are capable of this - not many people can do this, certainly I often struggle! it is helpful, because I did some further reading and really tried to see your point of view. Then it suddenly clicked - the bit I was missing was the "useful" part of being a work of craftsmanship. So suddenly I understood why you mentioned fine art and applied art. So... I have conceded some ground, because the point you make is of course quite valid.

Nevertheless, when it comes to murals, I think we still differ because murals are essentially useful items, in that as the Wikipedia definition explains, "a distinguishing characteristic of mural painting is that the architectural elements of the given space are harmoniously incorporated into the picture."

But I very much appreciate your holding the line, explaining what you believe to be true (I'm afraid ad nauseum to myself, which I am grateful for!). You challenged my understanding and belief, and in fact you did actually educate me. Which means I may have to make some more changes to the copyright page.

In terms of the copyright page in question - it was, unfortunately, out of date in a number of areas. I will take it to the talk page shortly to ask how we may make further changes - I do think that what we actually need to clarify is what "artistic craftsmanship" means and then it will clear everything up.

I think, incidentally, it has been unhelpful for people to say "there is no freedom of panorama in Australia", because that's really not true. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I certainly hope people have not said "there is no freedom of panorama in Australia", because there certainly is -- for buildings, sculpture, and works of artistic craftsmanship. But not for (pure) paintings, photographs, etc. It's basically identical to the UK -- their paragraph (c) simply says "a work of artistic craftsmanship", so Australia's 2004 change really just returns their text to be identical in that respect to the UK's law.

As for murals, yeah, I guess we still disagree :-) A mural's content can be anything the artist wants -- there is no restriction. A painting is the same; I really don't see a difference between the two. A mural can have elements which reflect the surrounding, but that is simply an artistic choice. I'm not sure what the article means by "a distinguishing characteristic of mural painting is that the architectural elements of the given space are harmoniously incorporated into the picture", other than perhaps it means the mural has to fit into the space defined by the wall itself (perhaps allowing for windows, etc.). I don't think that's really a functional restriction -- a regular painting has to fit on its canvas too. The text of the Wikipedia article is not close to a legal text either. The Burge decision quotes a paper by a Professor Denicola:

The dominant feature of modern industrial design is the merger of aesthetic and utilitarian concerns. It is the influence of nonaesthetic factors, the nexus between what the product must do and how it must look, that distinguishes true industrial design from other artistic endeavors. The industrial designer as engineer – a perspective no less valid than industrial designer as artist – is subject to the functional constraints inherent in each undertaking.

[...]

The designer cannot follow wherever aesthetic interests might lead. Utilitarian concerns influence, and at times dictate, available choices. Indeed, aesthetic success is often measured in terms of the harmony achieved between competing interests.

So to me, a work of artistic craftsmanship is where that balancing act exists -- the artistic choices are restricted by functional concerns. A stained glass window must still function as a window -- it must let light in, while keeping weather out, and strong enough to stand up to storm winds etc. You can't really use opaque colors/materials (other than thin strips), but still have to keep it sturdy, etc. Within those restrictions there is obviously plenty of freedom to make creative works, but there are still functional requirements which restrict artistic choices. The Burge case determined there is a point where the functional requirements overwhelm the artistic choices to the extent the result really is not copyrightable at all -- there is not enough artistic content really. To me, a mural has none of those restrictions -- the content can be whatever the artist wants. I don't think the shape of the canvas is a functional restriction, really. Indeed, the Wikipedia article mentions that some murals are painted on canvas and attached to walls. The dacs.org.uk page on craftsmanship mentions: Where comparatively ordinary items are hand decorated, copyright may exist in the decoration but not the item bearing the decoration. For instance, were Picasso to have painted a design onto an ordinary chair, that painting would be protected as with any other Picasso work. So in that case, using a chair as a canvas does not really change the status as a painting. Similarly, painting on a building likely does not change it either. Their FoP page mentions specifically that murals are like paintings, and not subject to the UK's very similar freedom of panorama. Do you know of a court case where a mural was treated as a work of artistic craftsmanship, or have a source which states that explicitly, or is that just your opinion? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and doubts

Firstly, thank you for the amazing work under "Unidentified ships" category. As you moved some pictures to Category:Dersa category, I would like to ask you the standard name (give me one example, pls) for the ferryboats that DERSA uses in Guarujá city (take a look here (in Portuguese) and here (in English), so I can try to create all the set. I would like to ask also for your help and revision on pictures inside here: Category:Oil and gas platforms in Brazil. Regards and congrats again, Sturm (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sturm: By reading the article and looking at the photos, I would say the ship names are simply FB-26, FB-17, and the like. They seem to be prominently marked on all the ships, with the port of registry below them (usually Santos by the looks of it), so they are all pretty easily identifiable. However, I could not find any kind of fleet list to find year of build and yard information, so I did not make individual ship categories, maybe doing more intensive searches at a later date. I suppose we could just create categories like FB-26 (ship) with no build year, then rename the cats if information can be found. But some quick searching did not uncover anything, so getting more info on those ships could be harder, so I mostly punted for now. histarmar.com.ar may be the best bet -- they have info on a lot of South American ships. Here is their page for FB-26 , but even they don't have a build year or any other construction info for that matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a start: Category:Dersa ferries. Regards, Sturm (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Shogi Proffesionals

Hi Clindberg. Would you mind taking a look at this DR? The question is not really whether the files being discussed are a copyright violation, but rather if they're "illegal" because they're infringing upon the "personality rights" of the subjects of the photos since they are being used without their consent. I kind of remember a similar discussion about this type of thing at Commons where the some organizations (I think it was the Indian military) were stating that their files could be freely used but only in a non-disparaging or appropriate manner. I can't remember what the term for that kind of restriction is called and it kind of seems like what is being discussed in the DR, except that in this case the organization is trying to claim control over photos taken of its members which were taken by private citizens and public events, where photography was allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and, for what it’s worth, I agree with what you posted. In this case, I think the uploader's wishes and concerns should be respected. My concern, however, is if these files are deleted because they are "illegal", then there may be also other files of identifiable living Japanese persons uploaded by other Japanese users whose deletion could be argued for the same reason; these photos could not only be of professional shogi players but athletes, musicians, actors, politicians, etc. Perhaps that wouldn't be the case, but it seems possible. Another thing I didn't mention in that DR is that there are photos of Japanese professional shogi players taken at events held outside of Japan by private individuals which have also been uploaded to Commons and it's not clear if those would be affected by this as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I would not extrapolate that into works where the subject and/or photographer is not involved in the request. It sounds like rights are ill-defined in Japan, and it would depend on lots of factors. Musicians / actors in public may well be quite different than instructors in class, it could depend on "reasonable expectations" with what is "reasonable" varying widely by the specific context and societal norms which we don't understand, and things like that. For requests by uninvolved people, we generally say it is the uploader who takes those risks, so if the uploader wants to keep them uploaded we would generally allow that. But conversely, if the uploader wants them deleted in light of new knowledge like that, I would tend to delete. They are responsible for knowing the law in their own country, and if it's a gray area I can understand if they don't want to risk being in that area. Even if they win a hypothetical lawsuit, most people just don't want to risk being sued in the first place -- uploads here are not worth that. Or even if something is perfectly legal, but would badly damage a friendship due to some deeply personal reason the uploader was unaware of, things like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Again all of that makes complete sense to me and I've got no problem with it. I can understand how an individual might have cultivated some kind of relationship with an organization or its members over time, and might not want to risk doing anything to negatively impact that relationship, even if the ultimate result isn't being sued. It's certainly possible that the an organization like the en:Japan Shogi Association or one of its member could give someone (even a well-meaning fan) the cold shoulder treatment if it/they felt like the fan had violated some "rule". However, I think that it's quite a leap to go from something like that to declaring something to be "illegal" because that would seem to necessarily apply to all such images regardless of their provenance and would essentially seem to say that Commons should delete all such images.

My understanding is that when an uploader uploads a version of one of their works under a free license that Commons accepts, in good faith and full understanding, that there is only an expectation that any re-users follow the terms of said license. If at a latter date, the uploader has a change of heart, then they can ask for the file to be deleted, but the terms of the license remain in effect in perpetuity per COM:LRV. So, if the uploader has any problems with re-users of their work, then that is a matter between the uploader and the re-user, and not Commons (even if Commons did end up deleting the file). Declaring that something is "illegal", however, seems as if to say that (similar to a copyright violation) the uploader had no right to upload the image in the first place and therefore the license they used was invalid from the start. In the first case, all of the "blame" would seem to be on the uploader for not being more familiar with the relevant laws of the country where they took the photo (perhaps they didn't carefully read any materials, e.g. the back of the ticket, associated with entry into a particular event). I could see some cases, however, in the second case where the uploader might claim that Commons is also at fault since it hosted the file and continued to host the file, especially if not deleted upon request, thus making more accessible to others. It seems that the uploader in this cases is implying a little of both, but that could be just a misreading of things on my part due to differences in language ability.

Most of the files in this case are being used on English Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia, but there are some used on other language Wikipedias as well. It seems the uploader started having concerns about the images when another Japanese Wikipedia editor started questioning whether it was OK to use them based upon shogi association policy. The uploader has already removed them all from Japanese Wikipedia, but they remain in use by the other projects; so, the uploader then requested that they be deleted from Commons. If deleted from Commons, they will automatically be removed from these other project pages as well; but, if not deleted (for whatever reason) it would seem that there's no reason for them to be removed.

It seems to be a no brainer that an organization can exert control over it's own original content or as content created by its members if that's part of organizational policy; it does seem, however, a little bit of a reach for an organization to try and exert effective control over original content about it created by independent third-parties by declaring all such content to be "illegal" unless consent is received, particularly if there's no real harm to either ability of the subject of the photo or the organization they are a member of to operate and function as they normally would be able to do. Organizations may try to do this, but I the burden would fall upon them to establish that the content is truly causing them harm. That's just my non-legal expert opinion, however, and things might really be different according to the laws of a particular country or previous cases ruled upon by certain courts. At the risk of violating en:Godwin's law, it seems that a country could pass laws to prevent certain content from being "published" within it's own country and that the residents of said country would be subject to it's laws, but the same country couldn't or at least would find it very hard to enforce those laws outside its borders against citizen of other country's or even citizens of its own country unless there is some type of agreement like the en:Berne Convention or any other agreements where countries agree to give consideration to each other's laws. Sorry for the wall of text, but I think it's important in this case if the files are deleted that reasons for doing so are quite clear so as to avoid any possible misinterpretation and misapplication of the close to other files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: this is somewhat like the PyeongChang Winter 2018 Olympics. (VPC discussion) But Japan is a very different culture. So it's hard to say, but I still can't imagine a band in Japan could sue its fans for sharing concert photos on social media. I think it's more about socially unacceptable things: taking photos of random people without their permission, publishing photos that depict people in way that could damage them, using photos of people in socially unacceptable ways. (like using a photo of a celebrity to suggest they endorse your product) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That's my reading of both the Commons page on the subject matter and the pdf that was linked in the DR by the uploader; however, I sort of agree with Clindberg in that the wishes of the uploader copyright holder should be given serious consideration in a case like this and Commons shouldn't go out of its way to make things difficult for the uploader even if the images might technically be legal. While it might be a loss of content to the articles where these files are being used if they're removed; they could be possibly be replaced by other images taken by other users if they really aren't "illegal". I personally don't think the Japan Shogi Association (JSA) would have much to gain by going around scouring the Internet for photos taken of its members by private persons at public events where the subject seems well aware that they are likely to be photographed and then demanding that such photos be removed or else; they might legally have the right to do so, but they would likely lose any PR battle that resulted from taking such steps and could actually lose fans if they go at people too hard. Look what happened with here; the publicity generated by such a thing might be seen as good by some, but I do think there's a down side as well that might not make it worth the gamble. The JSA had quite an image problem a few year's back when they they "punished" one of their own for allegedly cheating, but later had to backtrack and pay a settlement after the player was exonerated by a independent body. They only recovered because of the record-breaking performance of a new young star. I think they are truly concerned with how their members are being portrayed in public and want to avoid anything which might damage the reputation of either the member, the organization or any sponsors associated with either and Japan does have it's fair share of scandal magazines and paparazzi looking to catch well-known people in unflattering situations. I also think they want to ensure that pictures of their members don't showing up on T-shirts and coffee mugs, etc. because they seem to make a lot of money of merchandise sales. I don't think they are going to be targeting people posting fairly normal photos they take at events on social media, etc. So, I, like you, don't think there's much risk of being sued for uploading photos to Commons. I cannot, however, not tell the uploader not to worry if it truly concerns him/her that they will be sued. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests

hi Mr. Clindberg, I am writing these few words to say thank you, for the support you showed me when we send my files to be restored on the following page. unfortunately the fact of being opposed to recovery for reasons of LTA instead of evaluating the file, is really a speech that in a page like commons undeletion request, is really out of place--37.183.21.104 19:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki-Guide and Screenshots

Hello! I would really appreciate your comments, about a guide for the digitalization project I'm in charge at Wikimedia Argentina. Currently i have a small guide at Google Docs but the idea is to move it to meta.wikimedia. As i understand per Commons:Screenshots, i should...lets says pixelate Windows, and icons; AbbyFineReader main interface and icons (but not necessarily the config menu with the options), ScanTailor should be okey, its on GPL3; wallpapers are cc-by-sa4 and the documents are all PD. It is this correct? Thanks! Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on magazine cover, licensed as public-domain-US

Hi. I noticed your name at one of the tag template talk pages and figured you would be knowledgeable enough to comment on something. An image I wanted to use on the English Wikipedia for an FA nominated article has been questioned with regard to its free-use. Can you weigh in here? Isento (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Architectural plans from the Queensland State Archives

Hi! This category have some images that need a license review. If you have a few minutes perhaps you could check a few and tell me what the correct license for those are? Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review is another way in to check the images. --MGA73 (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: I would presume that they are {{PD-AustraliaGov}} (their term is now 50 years from creation, expires worldwide). The few I checked seemed to be government works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --MGA73 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Arby's limited time ad (brown sugar bacon).jpg

Uploader marked this as possible unfree but also talk about FOP. That do you think of this one? --MGA73 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The Arby's logo looks to be about the same as in 1977 (see https://aadl.org/a2signs232 ) so I would have to imagine they lost copyright on that (being without notice then). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --MGA73 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Crappy request

Hi! Sorry to abuse your kind help and give you this crappy request. I found this Special:ListFiles/John_Doe_Texas. It looks like most of the files have a bad license / incomplete source. Do you think its worth the time to try to save some of the files or should we delete most of them? --MGA73 (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: Bleah. Lot of bad licenses in there. The congressional portraits should be fine, particularly the ones he just re-uploaded, and I think there is a PD-FLGov which looks OK. There is one which appears to be from a daily newspaper in the 1930s -- those newspapers were not renewed. But most don't look good. Not sure what the educational use of the fictional electoral map would be. The signature may be OK but not sure who that person is and the lack of sourcing makes it of dubious use and possibly fictitious. I wouldn't try too hard to keep anything outside the congressional portraits, and File:Nathan Mayo(cropped).jpg (a crop of an existing PD-FLGov image), and File:岡野繁蔵議員.jpg. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I made Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by John Doe Texas and I hope I got it right! You are of course welcome to comment. --MGA73 (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Unidentified ships

Hi there, any reason why you performed this edit? While the archive identifies as a ship named Enterprise, we don't know which ship this is. At least, I've certainly never been able to figure it out, as it doesn't match any known ships that have been referred to as Enterprise. Would Unknown ships not be appropriate? Perhaps Unidentified ships in Australia? — Huntster (t @ c) 05:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: It's identified as far down as the ship name (clearly written on it) -- so yes, it's identified to a large extent. Maybe it could be pushed down to the Australia category. But often when we don't know the build year, we still create categories of "Category:<ship name> (ship)" once we know the name, per the top-level instructions in Category:Ships -- so to me it's not really the same thing as "unidentified". For such a common name, not sure that category name is a good idea, so "Ships named Enterprise" seems just as good (it does imply there is further research which could be done, as with other files there). Otherwise, not sure what makes a ship "identified" -- knowing a build year, or knowing the official number? Seems to me like knowing the name is as good a cutoff as any (and it seems the naming guidelines say the same thing), once it's in a name-specific category. I haven't been able to identify it further either, but maybe that just needs access to some specific Brisbane records. Looking at some of the registers here, there were a bunch of ships called Enterprise in Australia, but not sure it's any of the ones listed there. Those only seem to go to 1929 or so, and maybe this was after that, though the buildings this photo seem to be that early (it is Brisbane, right?) even if the ship seems more modern. Have to admit it's intriguing, given the loudspeakers on the ship. Just don't think it belongs in the purely "unidentified" category -- there are untold numbers of small harbor ships which may not have gotten a lot of official documentation, and older ships where it may not have existed at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I definitely get that, especially for the top level category. I think the AUS cat would apply, but I'll leave that alone. I've met entirely with non-starts as far as this particular one goes...oh well, maybe some day. Given its size, design, and possible functions, I'd expect something to exist on it. Yes, for "identified" I'd ideally like to know build year, or at least *some* kind of identifying information beyond just the name, but we don't always get what we wish for. Thanks for the detailed reply :) — Huntster (t @ c) 23:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: Yep, I was a bit surprised I couldn't find anything concrete on it either (have tried in the past). Possibly the name is so generic it makes finding hits hard, and it's also possible that the photo is from the 1950s and its documentation may still be under copyright and not easily searchable. Some of the same buildings are identifiable in File:StateLibQld 1 97664 Rowers on the South Brisbane Reach of the Brisbane River, ca. 1928.jpg, but that photo is much earlier as some of the buildings have been modified by the time of the photo in question. The building over the crane is I believe called the Musgrave Wharf, but there is nothing written on the roof, and every other photo I've been able to find has something written on it. I'm guessing this photo is at least from the 1940s, and quite probably later. The wharf on the right is I think for the American and Australian Line, but that hasn't help me date it either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Another 1937 photo of that area is here, and that is also much earlier (some trees near a building on the top of the hill at the top left of the Enterprise photo haven't grown yet). File:28 - South Brisbane wharves, 1950 (4741163587).jpg from 1950 seems much closer, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect you're right. As it pertains to Enterprise, I really can't get a handle on the potential age of the vessel in the above photograph, especially given the quality of the photograph itself. While it looks reasonably new, new paint and refurbs could put it almost anywhere on the spectrum. I do note, however, the NCK crane on the ship, which is almost certainly the same company as https://www.nckcranes.co.uk/, which gives a start date of 1947. Of course, said crane could have been added at any time during Enterprise's life. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)