User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 4

Josef Tal

Dear Elcobbola, Please refer to the following correspondence:

No OTRS ticket

There is no OTRS ticket for File:Josef Tal & His Loudspeakers.jpg. ([1]) If it's copyright status can't be verified, it will be deleted. Plrk (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Plrk, Please instruct me how to provide the requested permission. (BTW - isn't it enough that I officially declare this?)

Anyway - I have it in writing and I can fax it to you anytime. I suppose this must settle the issue.

Kind regards, Etan Tal (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Etan Tal

Hello! Please read Commons:OTRS and contact an OTRS volunteer for more information. Declaring someting doesn't mean much - on the internet, anyone can declare anything. Plrk (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the reason I would like to support my declaration with a document. I did ask an OTRS volunteer but no reply yet Etan Tal (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there is still no feedback, Elcobbola, pls help solving the matter. Thanks - Etan Tal (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Etan Tal, if you have obtained a written declaration releasing this image under a free license from Meir Ronnen, you need only forward it to permissions-commons (at) wikimedia.org. Эlcobbola _talk 08:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't find any message from you. Please email again and I'll do my best to help.Etan Tal (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My only response thus far has been the preceding comment from 13. July. Have you obtained a declaration from Meir Ronnen? Эlcobbola _talk 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The matter was discussed with Permissions - Wikimdia Commons [Ticket#2009070910029559]. Use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system as required. I hope this settles the matter. BTW the Artist Meir Ronnen passed away in Jerusalem three days ago, at the age of 83.Etan Tal (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mail

Pls ck email for msg from en wiki. I need help. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Received and replied. Эlcobbola _talk 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1

Hey there. There was an issue regarding copyrights in Japan during the mid-1920s and their application to the United States in this FAC, and both Awadewit and I were unsure if these images were still in the public domain in the United States. Is there any chance you might be able to take a look at File:Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi 1925.jpg and File:JapaneseAircraftCarrierAkagi3Deck.jpg to see if they are in the public domain in both the United States and Japan? Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive my belated response. It seems reasonably established that the images are public domain in Japan, as their duration for photographs appears to be/have been based on date of creation. Are the dates here creation or publication? It could impact the status in the US. Also, frankly, I don't believe the source is sufficient, as merely stating the museum holding the work doesn't really provide adequate information for a third party to verify the license (the requirement of IUP, which is, of course, relevant for FAC candidates). Is the uploader able to elaborate on the date and/or give us, say, an identifier number? Эlcobbola _talk 14:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that the dates are for creation; why would the museum hold publishing dates but not creation dates? :-) The uploader probably won't be able to verify anything; he hasn't been active for a year. If they are PD anyway, I think that noting which collection the photographs were scanned from would be enough...but I'm also not a copyright expert. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If the museum is like a typical western museum/archive, it will maintain information cards holding whatever date(s) is/were known at the time of donation or subsequently researched. The dates may be creation, publication or both (e.g. as is the case on a random LoC card). The uploader certainly won't respond if not even asked.  :) Despite what may be likely, it's important to remember that the threshold for inclusion on en.wiki is verifiability, not truth. Эlcobbola _talk 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Elcobbola, do you think these images should be deleted? Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In their current state, yes (from Commons anyway - fair use on en.wiki may or may not be appropriate). I don't see that any concrete proof--only what people believe to be "most likely"--regarding publication date has been provided. Were they published in the US before the Japanese copyright expired or not? To what do those dates refer? These are almost certainly PD in US in truth, but that is always subordinate to verifiability, especially when the media is seeking inclusion in featured content. Ultimately, it's important not to risk misrepresenting copyright status to our readers; if the images are genuinely important, fair use can be supported. That said, deletion discussions on the Commons (in practice) place the burden of proof on the nominator, so I very much doubt these would be deleted. Эlcobbola _talk 20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think they should be deleted from Commons -- they are PD in the country of origin, and their U.S. copyright was not restored by the URAA. If they were published in Japan (or anywhere, really) without a copyright notice prior to 1989, then they are definitely PD in the U.S. You're basing the above on the tiny, tiny chance that these were completely unpublished until after 1989. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You appear not to have read my response. Эlcobbola _talk 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly :-) The question was about copyright status though -- and there is no doubt at all about their status in Japan (country of origin) and their URAA status (they were not restored as they were also unquestionably PD in Japan in 1996). You mentioned "published in the US", but that is irrelevant -- it would be when they were first published anywhere. And it wouldn't matter if it was before or after the Japanese copyright expired. It also would need to have been published with a copyright notice, or else it would still be in the PD in the U.S. regardless of when it was published (see the Hirtle chart, the section "Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978", the line with "Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996". Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, no information regarding publication in the United States has been provided. What is the factual basis for assuming there was no copyright notice? Эlcobbola _talk 14:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is true (though again, it is publication anywhere, not just in the United States). On the other hand, I'm not sure where you are getting the "verifiability" requirement for images -- even for user-taken and uploaded images, all we know about their copyright status is based on a single, unverifiable claim by an anonymous user. Copyright is heinously complex, and it is very hard to be completely sure -- especially for photographs, as fully-documented provenance information, as well as complete publication information, is rare if not impossible to keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If we are to rely on the chart you've provided, that's not necessarily true; it, for example, sets forth a term of 95 years post publication for works published abroad before 1978 in compliance with all US formalities. I'm not saying this has happened, of course, only that publication information for the US is not entirely irrelevant. NW asked the initial question because the image is in use in a FAC candidate on en.wiki. The en.wiki policy WP:V applies to all "content" (i.e. not just prose) and, specific to images, WP:IUP requires verifiability. Use in an en.wiki article, therefore, subjects it to those policies. It may be important to keep in mind that I'm addressing the image from a position of use in an en.wiki featured article, not only existence on the Commons. COM:L, by the way, requires: "All description pages on Commons ... must contain the information required by the license (author, etc.) and should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status (source link) even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws." Where is the "information sufficient...to verify the license status" in the United States? Even the {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} license relies on publication date; whether the date provided by the source is creation or publication has not even been answered yet. I fully appreciate the enormous complexity of copyright, but a source that actually explicitly affirms the assertion of the license tag is necessary. Эlcobbola _talk 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

All fair enough. I do not see "verifiability" referenced from the IUP page though. I would think that the verifiability would apply to the image *content* (i.e., is that really a picture of the Akagi) not the license. I assume the dates mentioned are the creation dates -- but by the old Japanese law they have still been public domain there for decades (maximum of 20 years or so -- unpublished for just under 10 years, then 10 years following publication -- any other combination and the term was shorter). The odds that non-restored foreign photographs complied with all U.S. formalities (which would include registration with the U.S. Copyright Office to extend the term beyond 28 years) is vanishingly small. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

IUP uses the word "verified", so it may be solely my making a logical connection between the two. WP:V, though, indeed discusses the need for "material" (I said "content", which was the incorrect word) that "[is] challenged or likely to be challenged" to have a reliable source. License tags, by their very nature, are material likely to be challenged and this one, of course, actively is. As I've perhaps only implied before, however, I do believe this to be PD in the US in truth, but that isn't good enough, especially for featured content. Эlcobbola _talk 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, I guess that is where we disagree -- I don't think those verifiability guidelines extend to the license, but instead just the "material", to determine if the image belongs in the article (regardless of license, which is a separate concern). If you seriously apply those principles to licensing documentation, you could invalidate most images (especially post-1923 images). There is hardly ever zero doubt -- that is why there is a disclaimer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we shall have to agree to disagree. That we would have a tag, for example, that says an image was published before 1923 and not require a source which indicates the publication date seems asinine in my view of the world. How would the same not apply to any PD rationale? The meaningful implication on the greater project is a substantial increase in quality. Эlcobbola _talk 12:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the book that these are likely scanned from, and will add the information to the image files. The publishing date of the pictures in the book by the Kure Maritime Museum, (edited by Kazushige Todaka), Japanese Naval Warship Photo Album: Aircraft carrier and Seaplane carrier, is April 23, 1949. The photographs were taken by and belonged to the Imperial Japanese government prior to 1945. Therefore, under Japanese copyright law they are public domain. As far as I know, these photographs have never been published in the United States. I agree that they are PD in the US because the US government, based on my experience, treats Imperial Japanese government images as PD. Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I phoned the museum and talked with a curator. He wanted to see the images and I'll send him the image url. He said Kazushige Todaka is the director of the Museum. But according to this Japanese page, he was born in 1948. So the editor of the book seems to be a different person with the same name. The curator said that, as the director is away from town, wait for several days to answer the copyright status of the images. So would you please wait for days till I hear from the curator or the director? Oda Mari (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Will be awaiting your response. Hopefully his information along with Cla's (a publishing date of 1949) will be sufficient. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but please wait till Tuesday. As they didn't call me, I called them today and found out the curator I talked with on Oct.11 would not be available till Oct. 20. So please be patient for a while. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked the books by Kazunari Todaka at the en:National Diet Library site and found 54 titles. The most probable book is this one published in June, 2005 [2]. The photographs used in the book were selected from the collection by Shizuo Fukui (1913-1993). Fukui himself was a photographer and served in the Japanese Imperial Navy as a shipbuilding engineer. The images at Commons might be his work. The mystery is the published year 1949 mentioned above. Oda Mari (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Japan was occupied by the Allied Powers in 1949 and there was a press code for Japan, SCAPIN-33 like this one. See en:Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers#Media censorship and en:Occupation of Japan#Censorship. IMHO, it is difficult to think the war-related book was published in 1949. Oda Mari (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there was no other writer/author/editor called Kazunari Todaka in the National Diet Library database. As for SCAPIN-33, it must be somewhere at en:National Archives and Records Administration. Besides, the museum opened on April 23, 2005. It was impossible for them to publish any book in 1949. Oda Mari (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Stupid of me. Thinking about the birth year of Fukui, the image Akagi 1925 could not be his work. Maybe by Kiyoshi Nagamura/永村清 (1878-1966). Because this similar photo was taken by Nagamura and he was the shipbuilding director at Kure from Aug. 13, 1923 to Nov. 30, 1927 [3]. Oda Mari (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I talked with another curator today. BUT REMEMBER! This is not the official answer from the museum. She said "Probably the images are not copyrighted. If you want to use a photograph possessed by the museum, you have to apply for the use to the museum, actually to the city of Kure, and when accepted, the museum would give the photograph to you. But you have to specify the photograph is provided by the museum when you use it." Copying the contents from published books is not allowed except for a private/personal use in Japan. So she said "I think copying and uploading photographs from a published book to Wiki violates the publisher's right. I have no idea exactly what it is, though." Is it a matter of reproduction? I remember the phrase "No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission." How the law in the USA? She also said that the curator I talked with the other day might be too busy to contact me tomorrow. I try to get in touch with him, but cannot promise you that I can get the official answer from him tomorrow. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Copying and uploading photographs from books is 100% okay assuming they are in the public domain; that much I know. Other than that, I believe—assuming the template {{PD-Japan-old}} is correct—that Cla's information makes these photos PD, regardless of the author. Can someone who actually has knowledge in copyright law confirm this? Thanks for all of your help Oda; it's greatly appreciated. —Ed (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My reading of Japanese is not profficient, so I suspect that the 1949 date that I saw in the picture book is the date that the photos were released from the Imperial Japanese archives. I'm fairly certain that Shizuo Fukui did not take all, or even any of the photos. The picture book I have says that the photos are "from Shizuo Fukui's collection" and does not actually state that he took the photos. I believe that the photos were taken for official government purposes by employees of the Imperial government, and thus are public domain. In my opinion, I think it's safe for us to treat the photos as public domain until we hear something definitely different at a later stage. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good news everyone! As I was not able to contact the curator I first talked with, I phoned the Agency for Cultural Affairs. The Japanese Government Agency said all the pre-war photographs are not copyrighted and are PD. Because the old copyright law which was used from 1899 to 1970 is applied to them. The copyright protection period of photographs was 13 years after their creation/publication under the old law. Sorry it's in Japanese, but it is written on the page 27. The woman I talked with also said it is perfectly OK to copy and use those old photographs from recently, even if it's yesterday, published books. Thank you again for your patience. Oda Mari (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

While I was lurking about...

File:Arab staillon.jpg. Note the copyright notice. It's Judith Wagner, site is here. I suspect a scan from a magazine. (It's not a purebred Arabian either...not with that spotting!) Ealdgyth (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good eye! See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arab staillon.jpg. Эlcobbola _talk 15:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Help in deleting archives

Hello,

I'm new at Wikipedia and Commons, and I've made a mistake uploading images with copyright I didn't knew. I need some help deleting them. --Vevsburns (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've deleted File:Coletores tamanhos.jpg and File:Mooncup-menstrual-cup-002.jpg. Эlcobbola _talk 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Argentine Hercules.jpg

I'm reviewing this image for FAC and I wondered what you thought the host country was. I'm wondering what law applies. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The source says it's an "Official Photograph"; I don't know how to interpret that. The photo is from the "Ministry of Defence (Royal Marines) Collection", which suggests to me that it may be an official photo of that organization - i.e. published by an oranization in the U.K., not Argentina. The source does indeed say "Argentine photographer", but the photographer's nationality isn't necessarily germane to the copyright status. I'm German; if I publish a photo here in the US, it won't be subject to EU law merely because I have a maroon passport. So, in short, U.K. seems better supported (from a logical standpoint), but the source isn't clear enough to say for sure. Эlcobbola _talk 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the FAC before I responded, so, needless to say, I agree with your concern. Note also that Argentina may well have published many photos of the Hercules, but did they publish this photo? Эlcobbola _talk 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The photo was taken by a member of the Argentine military for the Argentine military. When British military personal take pictures in the line of their duty, we class it as crown copyright so I don't see why PD-AR-GOV doesn't apply. If I hadn't linked to that website for the source this doubt wouldn't even arised. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't said it doesn't apply (there is no {{PD-AR-GOV}}, by the way). If you have a source that actually says "taken by a member of the Argentine military for the Argentine military" and "in the line of duty", by all means, please provide it. "Argentine photographer" is all the provided source says; quite different from "Argentine military photographer"--and that detail would only be relevant if government works in Argentina behave as they do in the U.K. Эlcobbola _talk 20:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Those were my concerns exactly. Awadewit (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There were no Argentine civilians with the invasion force, they used their own military men, like I said this has been documented by historians of the Falklands War (I can see I'll have to provide refs now). I can ask for some outside expert advice on this matter at the Falklands war article, as they haven't been involved in editing the article. You do not have knowledge of the Falklands War, just because the source doesn't specifically state "Argentine military photographer", doesn't mean that it's not the truth, there are many typographical errors on that website I have noticed such as wrong aircraft names. P.S. Lets not be pedantic here, we're all friends, no need to get nasty, we all know I meant {{PD-AR-Photo}}. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention to be pedantic. For reasons not entirely clear to me, you shifted the conversion from the jurisdiction in which the photo was published to the author's profession. You have a license that says it is under Argentine jurisdiction and a source that not only doesn't support that position, but contractions it. That issue has not been meaningfully addressed. Details about the Falklands war are irrelevant; we need details pertaining to this and only this image. Further, if we're all friends, I'll thank you not to presume what I do and do not know about Falklands or any other topic. If that is how you discourse, we're done here. Эlcobbola _talk 12:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The source does not contradict, it states "Argentine photographer". Ryan4314 (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Argentine photographer"≠"First published in Argentina" Эlcobbola _talk 13:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryan is slightly incorrect, the photographers accompanying the Argentine invasion were all Argentine press men. That image does not however date from the invasion but from the visit by President Galtieri some time later. From memory I think it was published in Clarin. Suggest you try User:Dagosnavy who would have better access to the original press source. Justin A Kuntz (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)