Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/03

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

I didn't get it

Hi, could some one please explain this image status? the file is the LogoAEB_transparente.png. It uses the {{PD-BrazilGov}} permission, which states: This work is in the public domain in Brazil for one of the following reasons: "It is a work published or commissioned by a Brazilian government (federal, state, or municipal) prior to 1983". or "It is the text of a treaty, convention, law, decree, regulation, judicial decision, or other official enactment".

Well, IMHO, it doesn't fit any, since the Agência Espacial Brasileira was created in 1994. So how could be possible an associated logo before 1983 ? I need to use another logo from the same agency: the PNAE one. Can I use the same strategy?

Regards --Marcric (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

To me, both look like they fall under {{PD-textlogo}} so they should be okay. Now if we're going to judge them based on good design, it'd be a totally different matter ;-) -- Orionist ★ talk 17:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't that template say "in the United States"? Threshold of originality and I believe also copyright protection for fonts [calligraphy or lettering] varies by country. Dankarl (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Typefaces are not protected in any country, only font software might be protected but never the shapes. As for the threshold of originality, there is no clear cut line and it will differ from judge to judge. We try our best based on written laws and precedent, but no one can ever guarantee how a judgement might go, whether this case is in question or any other case. -- Orionist ★ talk 11:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
w:Intellectual property protection of typefaces says that's not true, as does several other websites, including this page where a company lost a court case in the UK on the matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The protections mentioned in the WP article are very rare and very limited. Most importantly they only protect the typeface if it's in the form of a font (digital or maybe metaltype) and even then for a very short period. The oul-taw.com article also seems to be about mass copying and selling of font software. No doubt, like everything else, there will always be exceptions and special cases. I said as much in my last comment. -- Orionist ★ talk 19:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
We generally make the leap from typefaces to any lettering. I think this is correct in the US given the Copyright Office position on calligraphy. However the logic that considers typefaces generally un-copyrightable or exempts usage by typographers assumes that the typeface is simply being used to convey information and thus is a utilitarian article. The transition to a designed hand-lettered logo, and especially where a complete font has not been designed, may be more country-specific or dependent on case law. Also copyright may apply to an arrangement of simple geometric forms and the presence of letters would not necessarily subvert that protection. The principal question is how are these cases treated in Brazil or more generally in any particular source country. Note that I have narrowed my comment above, I wrote too hastily and should have said calligraphy or lettering then. Dankarl (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Calligraphic scripts and typefaces are two sides of the same coin. The reasons for excepting them from conventional protections are the same: mainly to make written communication possible. If you're talking about letter ornamentation or maybe other custom modifications, they are not protected in the US for sure, while some countries laws might vary (UK for example) and others might not have given it much thought. Now, when calligraphy is used as a purely fine art, maybe in works similar to this or this, I have no doubt that it'd be protected. As for the Brazilian copyright law, while we could infer that font software is probably protected as it falls under "computer programs", terms like font, typeface, calligraphy etc. are neither listed under "Works Protected" nor mentioned anywhere in the law.
To go back to our original topic, the two logos we're discussing are using well-known fonts, one is using and the other . The "globe and swoosh" design has been used to death (it was all the rage in the 90's) and is one of the most notorious cliches in graphic design. Anyone would have a hard time arguing for their originality. To me, they look like they belong under PD-Textlogo, but again, it's impossible to know what a court would decide in this or any case. Cheers! -- Orionist ★ talk 19:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Open Data usage

The Province of Ontario has released some datasets using their version of the Open Data/Open Government license (it should be ok, it allows for commercial re-use). My question involves using the KML files. At the moment, I only have Google Earth that can read them, and it always shows that the maps are copyrighted down at the bottom.

If I import KML data from http://www.ontario.ca/government/open-data-ontario, and create a map with Google Earth, is that map copyrighted? I can remove the portions of the program that would be under copyright from the screengrab, but is the map itself then copyrighted? I've tried downloading open-source KML viewers (FalconView), but there seems to be a problem upon installation...

So if I import the KML data and remove all the copyrighted parts from the image, can the map be uploaded here? Oaktree b (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's okay as long as you're not showing anything that came from Google's data, and everything in the map comes from the KML, including coastlines, borders, roads etc. If that's not possible, you can use the screen grabs to trace ONLY the free KML data, and layer it on a map of similar projection from Commons or any other free source. Your best option is if you know how to use (or know someone who uses) GIS software, as these can easily integrate the KML with other free data to produce any type of map. Cheers! -- Orionist ★ talk 20:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ontario Open Data copyright tag needed

Thanks to my previous post on here, I was inspired. By using open data and non-copyrighted maps from NASA, I was able to create my first mashup of said data, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ontario_Open_Data_HOV_Lanes_and_Ontario_Service_Centres_mashup.jpg

Going forward, I'd like to see more such projects created. I think therefore we should have a copyright tag for any data released under the Ontario Open Data License, http://www.ontario.ca/government/ontario-open-data-terms-use

Basically allowing commercial use of any data under this license, and requiring attribution. Can I request such a tag to be made here? I think of the UK Open Government License as an example or starting point, but Ontario's usage is not quite the same. Closer to the CC tags actually, Can someone create such a tag? Oaktree b (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I found out that Google has registered a work entitled "Google : Logo design of Google." by Marie Shirato (born in 1970), copyright registration number VAu000697192. It says that the logo was made in 2005 and that the copyright was registered in 2006. w:Google logo does not mention any logo made in 2005, nor does the page mention any logo made by Marie Shirato. Which logo is the one by Marie Shirato, and do we have that logo in Category:Google logos? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It sure looks like Marie Shirato (as a person) made that registration, not Google itself. Google does tons of specialty logos; perhaps it was one of those. Or maybe even not something related to Google, Inc. at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

NASA PD?

Does the Johnson Space Center fall under a PD-NASA licence with this image?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see no reason why it would not. The credit line is clearly "JSC" (credit line for the image should likely be "NASA/Johnson Space Center" or "NASA/JSC" for clarity). It is common for NASA photogs or other NASA employees to ride along with researchers to capture these types of images, and NASA is pretty good about supplying accurate credits when they, well, actually supply credits. It's a shame the image itself is so tiny as to be barely useful in showing the subject matter, though. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There are larger versions on the net up to 750 × 498. She may have taken it with a small camera or it has been cropped.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
File:NASA EBF3 2007 test.jpg Best I could find, thanks for input.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Familia

These PDFs go from the early 1870s up to 1906. They're tagged under {{PD-Romania}}. I'm not quite sure how they fall under this rationale, and would like to get some opinions on this. The files were uploaded with an unauthorized bot acct apparently run by User:Bogdan. I asked Stefan4 about this earlier: User talk:Stefan4#Your opinion pls. INeverCry 21:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

According to en:Familia (literary magazine), it was printed in Budapest (modern-day Hungary) until 1880, then moved to Oradea (modern-day Romania) until it finished publication in 1906. At the time, both cities were part of Austria-Hungary, although the magazine was Romanian language so it would have been targeted at that readership. This could be a confusing situation to determine; when there are multiple successor nations, it's possible it might be considered to be simultaneously published in all such nations, and in that case the country of origin is the one of those with the shortest term of protection. It is arguable that Romania's law applies but it's going to be hard to figure a particular country to use either way. Despite Romania's EU membership, it appears their law to go to 70pma has never been made retroactive, so all kinds of bits of their old law could come into play. Given that terms may be based on 50pma (or maybe even shorter), I'd have no problem assuming the earlier issues are fine, though it does get a bit cloudier for the tail end of those but also still quite possibly OK. None of these have URAA problems (all published before 1923) so they are all PD in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Budhia singh.jpg

Uploaded in Jan/2013 but source was online in 2006. It doesn't have OTRS though. Isn't OTRS needed in these cases?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Additionally, the source states that the photo comes from Reuters, so own work is unlikely. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Admin may wish to check their other uploads and leave a note on the talk page about OTRS? I don't speak their native language.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I nominated this for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Identifying an author of a work from the Illustrated London News

I managed to identify the real source of File:Pashtoons.jpg and make some corrections to the original file description. It seems plausible that the author of a work published in 1879 would have been dead for at least 70 years, but it's far from certain. Can anyone make out what the signature in the lower right-hand side of http://www.old-print.com/mas_assets/full2/P1751879/P1751879233.jpg says? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

J. Tarlton or something similar.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
That would have been my guess too, and http://www.oldprintshop.com/cgi-bin/gallery.pl?action=detail&inventory_id=12577&itemno=1 seems to back that up. It also pushes the earliest known activity back by four years, which is good, but still inconclusive. If http://www.artnet.com/artists/j.-tarlton/on-a-riverbank-aRd65-e734Kq4eU_o1yInw2 is a work by the same J. Tarlton, we can push it back to 1864, which would make a date of death later than 1942 very unlikely, but still possible. I can't seem to find any definitive information. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You could try emailing the paper that was published in 1879 if they are still around. Their historical records may know when he died. Do we need date of death for country of origin or just date of publication?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The Illustrated London News ceased publication in 2003; it looks like the Illustrated London News Group's domain was ilng.co.uk, which is no longer in active use. Date of death is needed for UK works except in cases of Crown copyright, anonymous works, and posthumously published works. I'm going to tag it as missing a valid copyright tag now. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine has copies you may be able to find names of people, email them, and see what happened to their archives.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Luci Gosling - Picture Library Manager, Katie Simpson - Picture Researcher, and Marcelle Adamson - Picture Researcher. The site's email/contact page was archived as well but the emails may have broken when the site went down.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
A fan site that says he has a huge collection and does free research. The Sept 13, 1879 date matches for the image but no engraver named.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Found a few other illustrations he did for the same newspaper during the 1870s, with the earliest being 1874. I think speedy is a bit harsh... may want a regular DR, as that is just about at the point where we may accept PD-old-70. It can definitely be moved to en-wiki instead of completely deleted as it is PD-1923. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed the speedy tag. DR is the next step if someone wishes to list it and add to the backlog. I don't see any 'significant' doubt that it isn't PD.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Only on Commons is digging up proper source information, correcting all the fields I could for the uploader and giving them a whole week to identify an appropriate copyright tag considered "harsh" and "speedy"... I guess if you want to be responsible for Commons continuing to host this file with the obviously false {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} claims, that's your choice. I think I've done more than my fair share to try to straighten things out. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops. I didn't even notice the licence. Can we just put a PD old version on it or take it to DR?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Without verifiable information about when the author died, it's not possible to add a PD tag that's verifiably appropriate as required by Commons:Licensing. I really don't think a deletion discussion is going to make any difference. In fact, the reason I took it here instead of straight to COM:DR is that people here tend to be better at coming up with needed information, whereas most deletion nominations just linger for a week before being routinely deleted if the rationale is somewhat reasonable and unopposed. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Without a death date it is questionable. I don't know why we can't find any bio info on him with so many well done works. It isn't used in any articles so I see no problem with deleting it. Did anyone try an email to the fan site above? His collection may have more info on the author.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this image acceptable?

Hi, I would like to upload an image of one of Schubert's musical scores (so originally written around 1817 or so).

Is this OK to put onto Commons? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say this is {{PD-Scan-100}}. An original manuscript by Schubert would now be in the public domain, so it's ok upload it. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
That's great: many thanks indeed. (I thought it probably would be the case, but I'd rather err on the side of caution !) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of US Federal Court Documents

According to the Hirtle chart, "Works prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" are in the public domain in the United States. Does that include briefs and other documents filed by a non-employee officer of a federal court?

For example, an amicus brief or a civil complaint filed in a federal case is not typically or necessarily produced by a government employee but it is produced by an Officer of the court. Once filed such documents become an integral and permanent part of the public case file unless sealed by court order, which is highly unusual. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Being an officer of the court doesn't mean that you are an officer of the US government, as the page you link to explains.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but that still does not answer my question re: the copyright status of documents filed with a federal court by an officer of the court who is not a government employee. Officers of the court are not necessarily officers of the US government but they are officers of the judiciary branch of the US gov't. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
They are not employees of the US government. Therefore, they keep their copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've done some more research on this question and the copyright status of legal briefs filed by non-government employees is, apparently, not a matter of settled law. Last month, "in one of the most highly watched copyright cases of the last few years" a federal judge dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis over this very question. However, it seems he still has not issued an order and opinion explaining his ruling. The attorneys claiming copyright to their briefs lost. It may be that the suit was dismissed on Fair Use grounds, meaning the attorneys do have copyright to their work, but given how Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis use the briefs that would seem like a real stretch. We'll see. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

British en:War artists and Crown Copyright

Hi all, while in this deletion request it has been argued that the work of said artists is covered by Crown Copyright, but I haven't found any compelling argumentation supporting said statement. Has a similar case being discussed here previously? Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Restoration work on public domain images

I'm curious about the threshold of originality on restoration/reconstruction work done on public domain images (PD in the US, restoration work done in the US). Is there any guideline regarding this on Commons? At what point can a restored image be considered original enough, or is this even possible in the US? I'm asking because I came across the permission text in File:Jean de Paleologu - Jules Massenet - Sapho.jpg where essentially a new copyright was placed on a restored work (but the restorer is in the UK). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The restoration appears to be limited to adjusting brightness and color levels. There are no missing areas or major soiling on the Library of Congress original. My "restoration" of File:Science and Mechanics Nov 1931 cover.jpg was more extensive. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Rule of the shorter term

Not that it matters for Commons, since for US works we only care about US copyright. But let's say a US work is below the US threshold of originality (and thus PD in the US) but above the UK threshold of originality. In this case, would it be PD in the UK by the rule of the shorter term? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. There was a case where a utilitarian object from the United States was found to be protected by copyright in Sweden. Utilitarian objects should be below the threshold of originality in the United States but are often above the threshold of originality in Sweden. This would suggest that the rule of the shorter term doesn't apply on threshold of originality cases.
On the other hand, it seems that Sweden has a bilateral copyright treaty with the United States, and some bilateral treaties have been found to disable the rule of the shorter term on US works, so maybe Sweden doesn't apply the rule of the shorter term on US works. For example, there was some German court which found that the German bilateral treaty disabled the rule of the shorter term for US works in Germany. If all of those bilateral treaties say essentially the same thing, then it means that very few countries apply the rule of the shorter term towards US works in the first place. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with {{PD-US-no notice}}

Could it be applied to File:"Love-In'_at_Arcadia_County_Park_on_June_4,_1967.jpg? If not, could anything be applied to make this file usable on Commons? What amounts to publication as far as a photo in the US is concerned? Thanks. --moogsi (blah) 02:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Confused about PD status of an image

File:Louis Grell self portrait.jpg was recently uploaded. As this painting is by an American artist (based in Chicago), and was painted circa 1916, {{PD-1923}} would seem to be OK. However, w:File:Louis Grell Self Portrait ca 1916 conserved.jpg is uploaded with a free-use rationale. Does it actually need one? --moogsi (blah) 05:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It depends on its date of publication. If it was published in 1917 (if the exposition in 1917 counts as a publication) then it is ok. If it was published later, its status will depend on many things such year of publication, copyright registration and copyright notice. Ruslik (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Japanese occupation money

During WWII, Japan produced money in occupied territories. For example, w:Category:Banknotes of the Philippines and Category:Banknotes of the Philippines contain lots of banknotes from the Philippines.

  • All of them are in the public domain in Japan because works by organisations (such as the Japanese government) enter the public domain 50 years after publication. See {{PD-Japan-organization}}. Additionally, they were in the public domain in Japan on Japan's URAA date.
  • The template {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} only appears to apply to works by the Philippine government and not to works by the Japanese government. Does this mean that the copyright expires in the Philippines 50 years after the death of the artist? I assume that no banknotes are anonymous and that you can find the name of the artist in specialised publications about numismatics.

Is the source country Japan or the Philippines? That is, are these in the public domain in both the source country and the United States? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Help required on Licensing and Copyright of company now closed

Hi

I have a photo to upload which was taken in 1965 by a company which is now closed can anybody please advise on the Licensing and Copright templates I should use.

I have the GB company CEGB and a link to there closure in 2001

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/3421/contents/made

Any help much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukengineer (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Even though the company is gone the copyrights remain. They could be with the image creator or sold with the assets of the company at liquidation.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

US no notice

I just uploaded File:Malachi Throne Robert Wagner It Takes a Thief 1968.jpg and File:Malachi Throne Ida Lupino It Takes a thief 1968.jpg and would like to confirm that they are PD no notice by a few regulars here before I crop for infoboxes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Original design element protected by copyright?

So, I have been uploading a number of images of different foods and while doing this I have been careful not to show any part of the plates I am placing the food on to avoid any copyright infringment on any original design elements, but I noticed that there are tons of images on plates that clearly show unigue design elements such as patterns, shapes and engravings etc. Am I overthinking this or should we be avoiding showing such elements in these photos?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone with better knowledge than I will come along, but I think this would be similar to uploading images of paintings with unfree frames, which are usually cropped out. The unfree image is then deleted. So in my very humble opinion, you are doing right, you are not overthinking it, and the other uploads are potentially violating copyright for those unique plate designs. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
"Sculptures, paintings and action figures do not have utilitarian aspects and are therefore generally copyrighted as works of fine art. On the other hand, ordinary alarm clocks, dinner plates, gaming consoles or other objects of daily use are usually not copyrightable."
"Usualy" doesn't tell me everything. LOL! I undertsand that a plate is "utilitarian", but that doesn't really say anything about the design element that I am talking about such as a specific raised edge design, engraving etc. but is this a patent or a copyright? I think this is the specific issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, although the quote is true in the United States, many European countries make no difference between utilitarian and non-utilitarian works, providing protection for both. For example, there was a case where an ordinary knife was found to be protected by copyright in Denmark. If the purpose of the image is to show the food, then I would argue that the plate usually is de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we have the Lua programming language logo in Commons?

Lua support is landing in Wikimedia projects as a programming language for templates. It comes with a sui generis pre-Commons license for their logo, though. Could you check and tell whether it is open enough to have it hosted in Commons, please? English Wikipedia is featuring that logo at w:Lua (programming language) and it would be useful to have it available for mediawiki.org as well. Thank you!--Qgil (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The restrictions on modification prevent it from being a valid license. However, we should be able to accept it as a {{PD-textlogo}}, though it's not clear what the threshold of originality in Brazil is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. It's done now: File:Lua-logo-nolabel.svg. A piece of information in the original that is not showing in Commons is "|other_information = Converted to SVG from http://www.lua.org/images/lua-logo-nolabel.ps". I have tried to find a template for this - with no luck.--Qgil (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Documentary film Copyrights...

Hello,

I am making an ambitious documentary film, both for worldwide TV audience and festivals. I also found a lot of fine photos and several video clips on Wikimedia that I would like to include. However, what worries me is the intellectual properties, clearances, permissions...all that stuff pertaining the legitimate use of photos and video clips...Here are a few questions for You:


1.) attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Does this means that I have to mention every author/licencor in the end credits? Or while the photo is playing on the screen (lower screen corner title, etc.)

Here is a sample that I intend to use: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bruce_Willis_by_Gage_Skidmore_2.jpg

2.) share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

I am intending to simply put the numerous images into my documentary, play it for a few seconds on the screen and not visually alter it, USE IT AS IT IS. Therefore, what is build upon this work manner?


Best Regards,

Mark-- unsigned by User:Docutux?

I think 'share alike' means your video would need a similar licence. The credits should go somewhere in the video for all the files that request them. Some may even request the attribition at the images themselves where they appear in the video.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You are both looking at the "human-readable summary" of the licenses, while you should look at the full license in legal code. So, to answer Mark's questions:

1.) The Creative Commons licenses are very flexible in regards to the manner of attribution and they don't specify one way to do it, instead it should be "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing". They don't specify how but what to attribute. So it's your choice if you want to put it on screen or the end credits. However, you have to make sure that it includes the following:

1- Title of the work (if any). Note that this might be necessary only if the author had deliberately titled the work, so for example it probably doesn't apply to most photos (file name doesn't necessarily mean work title).

2- The Author's name, or if it can't be found the pseudonym, user name etc.

3- The type of license.

4- The URL of the license on the Creative Commons website.

So for example you could mention in the end credits: "Photo of Bruce Willis by Gage Skidmore. Available under a Creative Commons Attribution license." And then after you list all works under the same license you could add: "Full text of the Creative Commons Attribution license can be found at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/". After that you can make a similar list for the Attribution-ShareAlike licensed work with the relevant link etc. (note: link to the human-readable summary of the license.)

2.) Most of the restrictions in the Attribution-ShareAlike license don't apply to collections, in which case the terms become almost identical to the Attribution license. Even when you adapt a work, say, if you change the colors of a image, only the new image you created should be licensed under the same license (CC-BY-SA) and not your collection work, so someone can freely reuse the specific frame that shows the image but not your film. Now, the way you say you're describing how you're going to use the works, I think your film certainly falls under "collections" (see definition in license legal code), but I recommend you consult your lawyer to be 100% sure.

Here are some useful links:

I hope this helps. Cheers! -- Orionist ★ talk 04:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy right protection of a picture database kept as font file

(transferred from Village pump)

Hello,

The Taiwan .edu site has this 下載古漢字字型2.4版 link， which leads to an unpacking .exe file containing four fonts :

  • 收錄 小篆字型7,475字、 = font 北師大說文小篆 = small seal font from the Beijing Normal University, 7,475 glyphs ;
  • 金文字型1,533字 = font 中研院金文 = Academia Sinica bronze style characters, 1533 glyphs ;
  • 甲骨文字型760字 = font 中研院甲骨文 = Academia Sinica oracle characters, 760 glyphs ;
  • 楚系簡帛文字字型1,095字 = font 中研院楚系簡帛文字 = Academia Sinica Bamboosilk characters, 1.095 glyphs.

All these glyphs are very interesting, and I would like them to be preserved somewhere.

Apart maybe for the first one, these fonts are digital reproduction of ancient Chinese pictures (more than 2000 years), thus have no author's right attached. This is why some of these characters have been uploaded and turned into .sgv equivalents (see 馬 character).

But the fonts can be considered as a picture database, which as such may benefit from the fifteen years protection (starting from publication date) given to databases.

Seen from this page, these files are available since 1999. So the protection (if any) ends in 2015. Is it OK to upload these fonts at the end of next year ? Or to upload them right away ?

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Micheletb -- according to the laws of the United States, the abstract shapes of characters in a text font are considered to be "functional" or "utilitarian" and uncopyrightable, but the computer code contained in a computer font file which is used to produced such a shape can be copyrighted as computer code. This means that a rendered raster of font characters is always safe ({{PD-font}}), while vector SVGs including vector font character shapes are probably OK most of the time... AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking ok, but these are not real fonts but picture collections. No code has been involved in that case. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
For svg representations of ancient script there is {{PD-ancient-script}}, which suggests that vector code representing something PD is not subject to copyright. I'm not sure about this, though (I just read this properly and it doesn't apply here. Carry on) --moogsi (blah) 17:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, these files essentially seems to be picture databases kept as font files. The pictures themselves are public domain. My problem is therefore not about author's right, but about copying rights attached to a file, be it specifically a font file, or generally speaking a computer database  :

  • Though the file is formally a computer font, I assume that the specific protection for fonts (author's right for glyph drawing and/or programming protection for computer generation) does not apply here, since no drawing or creation is involved.
  • Is there a policy on commons about uploading whole databases (not just extracts), given that there is a legal protection (15 years in France) on publicly available databases?
  • Is there another legal qualification that would apply to that case ?

... thanks in advance - If nobody objects I'll upload the font somewhere for preservation and future use, the site has had no movements since long and I fear it being shut down. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Any content on commons must be free in USA and in the country of origin (Taiwan/China in this case). Its copyright status in Europe is irrelevant. Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

French status is given because the international conventions will probably lead to something similar in the USA. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Databases do not have any special protection in USA, but have in Europe. You can read this in w:Database Directive. Ruslik (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Databases as Compilations: Databases are generally protected by copyright law as compilations. Under the Copyright Act, a compilation is defined as a "collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 17. U.S.C. § 101. seen on www.bitlaw.com 83.193.171.56 08:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
It only proves what I said above: there is no special protection for databases in USA. Ruslik (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that USC17, but it seems to deal with databases, what is the protection given by that statute? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Databases are not mentioned in 17. U.S.C. § 101. Ruslik (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Discovering from w:Database right and w:Threshold of originality that there is no protection in the US for such databases. OK, is uploading of these "fonts / picture collections" OK on commons, then, even though a normal font would not be allowed (but I can't find the formulaion of such a policy on commons)? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Databases per se are not protected by U.S. copyright, as there is nothing like the EU sui generis right. However if there is creativity in the "selection and arrangement" of non-copyrightable works, then that can qualify as a copyrightable work itself (a "collective work"). This is true in most countries. If they represent a complete set of glyphs which have previously existed, then there is not much creativity in the selection -- they simply took all of them. But say for something like a volume of a selection of a writer's works, there probably would be a copyright on that particular selection and ordering. As for the font, if these are pictorial symbols, then they are not typeface, and the U.S. non-copyrightable treatment of typeface would not apply. They could be copyrighted in theory. But if they are unoriginal copies of old works, then that should not be an issue either. There might be some question if the vectorization qualifies as a copyrightable work, if the mechanism used included any human creativity or if it was basically a mechanical process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I assume that they're all ancient versions of Chinese characters, from a period when some (but by no means all) Chinese characters were more "pictorial" than they are now. If the fonts are treated as fonts, then my answer of "07:16, 5 March 2013" applies. I'm not too sure why it wouldn't apply... AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
If they were a form of communication, then yes, they would be typeface and there would not be a copyright on the base shape. The distinction is for something like Dingbats, which are copyrightable pictures even though they are in a font. But the font itself may be as copyrightable as any other vector font in the U.S. (with kerning and other information). If creation of the font was pretty mechanical (someone just scanned and auto-vectorized the characters) then it probably would not be copyrightable, but if there was hand-tuning, it gets into a gray area. I'm not sure I would upload the exact (or converted) font, though glyph examples may be OK -- though even then if we upload *complete* sets, allowing someone to make an essentially duplicate font, it gets into cloudier areas. Bitmaps of the glyphs would be OK of course, and you could re-convert to vector from those I suppose. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Astana

Hi, I rapidly create one or two article of Astana's building on wp:fr, and I see Category:Buildings in Astana... I don't know how do so many deletion request (I haven't do one, on just a single target...), and I'm not really want to do that, but I think, perhaps there are near 100 files to delete because the majority for those buildings are create recently... --Nouill (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I read Commons:FOP#Former_Soviet_Union for Kazakhstan as not being allowed. A trusted admin may just delete them all except the ones that are Commons:De minimis if it applies to any.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I just nominated three photos of w:Bayterek for deletion. It will be necessary to identify the age of the rest of the items too. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Can the obvious ones be speedied to save time? If they want any undeleted then they can go from undelete straight to DR for discussion on age and Commons:De minimis.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Derivative for use outside Wiki

Firstly sincere apologies if this has been covered but I have spent some time on the Wikimedia site but cannot find a suitable thread.

In short I am a confused as to how a designer would stand as outlined in the following scenario:

A commercial project is undertaken which requires the appropriation and adaptation of numerous images, the finished product will be an eBook (for sale as opposed to free distribution).

The images will always be filtered/tinted to fit the publications house style. Sometimes they will be used un-cropped, in some cases used as backgrounds ( with varying degrees of visibility), certain elements from the image maybe extracted or the image may be cropped.


These pages will not be uploaded to the Wiki site as this is a commercial venture.

How would I stand in relation to copyright violation of images found on the Wiki Commons site? On a related note, it would be impractical to attribute the images.

Many thanks for any assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar6161 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 10 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Follow the licenses given on the image pages. There's at least four major licenses used on Commons, and several other minor ones. In most cases, attribution is not optional. I fail to see how attribution could be impractical, since as an eBook, you could stuff pages of attributions at the end without problem, but if it is, that will greatly limit the images you can use from Commons.
It's so important, I'll say it twice. Follow the licenses given on the image pages. Especially if you plan on making money from it, you need to take the time to read the licenses of works you want to reuse.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You haven't mentioned any specific images, so this is going to be a very generic answer. The licensing terms of nearly all copyrighted content that you'll find on Commons require attribution of the author and acknowledgement of the license, and using them without adhering to the licensing terms constitutes copyright infringement. Even for works in the public domain, many jurisdictions require attribution of the author, if known. Many of the licenses used on Commons (notably Creative Commons licenses with Share-Alike conditions) require any published derivative works (usually exempting collective works including unmodified versions of the original) to be released under the same terms as the original. See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In fact, Commons has also a huge amount of content that requires no attribution whatsoever, millions of files all in all... e.g. the 1,135,415 files in Category:PD-self and the 352,616 in Category:CC-Zero... so, yes, it very much depends on the licenses of the files in question. And you might have to check whether it may be needed to attribute even the author of a PD-self picture in your jurisdiction, as LX says. But usually PD-self uploaders don't expect attribution (that's rather the point of using PD-self or CC-Zero - some prefer it if they're not attributed)... Gestumblindi (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue on File:Danielle Mackey.jpg

This image of Danielle Mackey was uploaded the commons and then added to her article by User:Kale8365. The description indicates that it is a screencap taken from one of her YouTube videos, and in the Permission section, it merely provides the link to her YouTube channel's main page, where I could find no indication of any permission. I tried asking Kale8365 about this, but he/she gave no response, though he/she has continued to edit subsequent to my talk page message. A screencap from someone's YouTube video, with no apparent indication from that someone of permission, is not, I believe, a free image that can be on the Commons. Nightscream (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If the uploader is the author of this image/video and has not specified a license then it is normally presumed that the license is CC-BY-SA as this is the default license of all Wikimedia content. You can see the warning every time you save an edit. Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
How do we know that the uploader is the author? Nightscream (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
From what I can see there, we don't have any evidence that the uploader is (or has permission or license from) the copyright holder, which is presumably Danielle Mackey. Seems like a routine video frame capture copyright violation to me. I'm usually nice and "Nominate for deletion" (normal Commons:Deletion policy discussion) if it looks like they could clarify things; or use "No permission" (Commons:Deletion policy#Missing legal information) if it's blatant. (I don't know why we're discussing default license; {{Cc-by-sa}} is in the original upload text.) --Closeapple (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I just found where the image was probably taken from: A Maxim magazine video here. Nightscream (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be very similar, but the Maxim logo hasn't been put over it; also, I can't find a frame where that little piece of her hair hangs out on her shoulder. From where her head is, she must have done the Maxim thing in the same session as whatever this is taken from though; or maybe this is from her original version before Maxim edited it. --Closeapple (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited print texts of public domain manuscripts

I've uploaded File:Westminster Confession of Faith.pdf, but am having second thoughts about its freeness. It is a 1946 transcription of a 17th-century manuscript that I would like to get up on wikisource. The editor (in a note which can be read here, but which I did not include in the uploaded work because I assume copyright does apply to it) the editor claims to have only left out some commas he deemed excessive. Does putting the manuscript into print form and removing some commas make the 1946 work a copyrightable derivative work? --Jfhutson (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think not. Ruslik (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
If the manuscript was unpublished before and the publication was more recent, the editor could have have gained publication right, but this doesn't seem to apply to a 1946 publication, even if it was the first. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Page 2 contains a note from the publisher. This page seems to be protected by copyright. Page 25 is likely also copyrighted. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
See w:Copyfraud. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
And? Page 2 is clearly original material copyrighted to the publisher. Page 25 and the logo on the cover are also copyrighted to the publisher. Copyfraud has nothing to do with enforcing the copyright on your own material.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Page 2 was omitted from the original upload (for good reason), but looks to have been included in the second upload. That one should be removed as it is clearly copyrightable. The last page... not sure, seems to be a bunch of fair-use extracts from reviews. Might have a selection and arrangement copyright, might not. This would have had the UK's typographical arrangement copyright on printed editions, but that expired after 25 years as well. It's academic but I don't think the publication right would have applied (other than to the forward) as the material had been previously published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I've reblanked page 2. --Jfhutson (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Recurent copyright upload

This user Emeline motocross (talk · contribs) apparently refuse to admit or understand copyright still continuing in uploading photos under copyright from various sites. Longterm warnings are unefficient, see User talk:Emeline motocross. May an administrator do whaterever required to stop it. Thanks.--LPLT (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You'd better post such requests on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Ruslik (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

USAF (public domain) or personal?

Regarding File:Brian Shul in the cockpit of the SR-71 Blackbird.jpg, technically this image was very much taken during a Blackbird mission. But I've been wondering for a while now exactly what the copyright status of some of Brian Shul's images really are (the ones taken by him during missions). (Apparently, according to outside Blackbird-employee reunions, people were/are annoyed that he took the time to photograph either himself, the view, etc. during missions.) I would think technically this image is in the PD, but the book I retrieved it from, The Untouchables, does say at the beginning that the images are copyright 1988 Brian Shul, and that no image may be duplicated without written permission from the publishers. But if the images are PD, then wouldn't the reproductions in the book be as well? I know it's this way with paintings; not sure about photographs. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If the image was taken by a US government employee during his working hours, it follows that the image is in public domain. This appears to be the case here regardless of that book says. Ruslik (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I intend on adding more images then, and only the ones that are "during working hours" (shots of the plane on the tarmac, for example, I have no idea unless I can find an online source). Mr. Shul seems to guard his photographs closely (he hasn't released high-resolution images on his website). I'll keep my eye on this discussion in case anything else pops up. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 11:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Abuse of administrator right"

The following picutres are all taken by myself using my own camera. But Vera deleted them on the excuse of copy violation without providing any URL that they are violating. His accusation is totally groundless. Could someone let me know how can I file a complaint about his abuse of administrator's right and get my photos back?

You accusation against 1Veertje is rather faulty. 1) 1Veertje did not delete your images, but only marked them as likely copyvios. Thereafter, other admins evaluated the tagging and after finding it correct, performed the deletion. 2) 1Veertje did clearly provide a copyvio-rationale: "Derivative work of copyrighted material. copyright protected packaging". This doesn't require a URL. She nowhere said that you copied the image file from somewhere. --Túrelio (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
See COM:DW. The problem is that you don't own the copyright to the actual packaging. For example, if I use my own camera to photocopy every page in a book, that doesn't mean the copyright to the book's contents belongs to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think what you said is right. These photos are not about art works. Otherwise almost all the contens under Category:Alcoholic beverages and Category:Instant noodles should be deleted, because all products have trademarks.Besides, I'm not photograph every page of the book, only a general apperance. 螺钉 (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

See COM:CB#Product packaging. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Not true. This is fine because it shows only noodles and no packaging. This is also fine because each individual package is a tiny bit in a whole; see COM:DM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA or GFDL?

I’m a media contributor. I just noticed that Wikimedia/Wikipedia listed CC-BY-SA as the recommended license for “own works” under Special:UploadWizard. Earlier it was CC-BY-SA+GFDL in the old upload form. Is there any specific reason for this change? Further I noticed that now all of our pages have a footnote “Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.” Earlier it was GFDL. Why? JKadavoor Jee 15:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I always do CC-BY-SA + GFDL multi-license, and that was part of the reason I did not use UploadWizard (since there's no option for that) and stayed with the old upload form for a while, even if it required repeating the same actions several times for a batch upload. Then I tried UploadWizard and had to manually add GFDL each time. Finally, I found Commons:VicuñaUploader and am now a happy user of that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks KoH. But I wonder if there a specific reason for removing the "CC-BY-SA + GFDL multi-license" option in UploadWizard. Further, link to the old old upload form was removed from the menu on left. So people only know that web address can now use it. I doubt whether this change is part of a policy update. JKadavoor Jee 08:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
No policy change. I've actually requested the dual option a few times but they said they were too busy and will eventually get around to it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
OK; thanks. JKadavoor Jee 05:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Images need looking at by Admin

Hi several images recently uploaded on 8th and 10 March by a user as own work appear to be copied from another web site [1] which was updated on 7th March. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-VenezuelaGov}}

This template is barely used, on these files. The constitution is fine, but what about the others? Are they "texts"? It doesn't seem so but laws tend to define words how they like... --moogsi (blah) 01:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Other images are not ok in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever cleared this out, I forgot I posted this! --moogsi (blah) 12:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling reforms and copyright.

I have a copy of Kepustakaan Popular Gramedia's Kesastraan Melayu Tionghoa dan Kebangsaan Indonesia series, which republishes Malay-Chinese works using the Perfected Spelling System, as opposed to the original Van Ophuijsen spelling system. In short, this means that the dj's have been changed to j's, the j's have been changed to y's, the tj's have been changed to c's, the ch's have been changed to kh's, and the oe's have been changed to u's. Would this modification affect the works' copyrights? There are at least four which are otherwise public domain in the US, Indonesia, and the Netherlands, and thus I hope to scan and upload them if it's acceptable.Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In the US, most arguments are that orthography is not copyrightable. So I think you should be fine, unless someone wants to argue Indonesian or Netherlands law. (This is a pretty trivial mechanical change, too.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

{{FWL}}

Is {{FWL}} a valid license? The terms of the license are not spelled up, and I can not find a link to English translation. Is it equivalent to some other license? --Jarekt (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Definition of Free Cultural Works, it is a valid license. — Ralgis [mantis Religiosa] — 13:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I can not find FWL on the page you mentioned. Is "Freie Wiki-Lizenz" the same as "Lizenz für Freie Inhalte". And today the link does not work so we can not even google-translate the license itself. --Jarekt (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The link seems to be working now. Perhaps a German speaker can get more information at w:de:Vorlage:Doppellizenz FWL. --moogsi (blah) 12:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless the licence text is copyrighted, I think that we should always host a local copy of every licence used on Commons so that we don't run into trouble if the server hosting the licence text breaks. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Most license texts are copyrighted, but I don't think it really counts as a free license if you can't distribute it along with the files it applies to. You can't even rely that it stays stable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright review

Hi. I uploaded this image File:Shukuru.jpg last month and I now realise it's not available for commercial use. Can someone please review it? AliFazal (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It was reviewed on February 22, there's no need to review it again. — Ralgis [mantis Religiosa] — 13:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
We've had a discussion over this. Apparently the WEF changed their Flickr licensing to NC just now. However, already imported files are OK because CC licenses are irrevocable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Ralgis & King of Hearts. AliFazal (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-commercial file on commons

Update: license was changed on flickr, all's swell.

This image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haliaeetus_albicilla_%28Svolv%C3%A6r,_2012%29.jpg also appears on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yathin/7857079800/), presumably by the same person, but the image on flickr is not multi-licensed, and is non-commercial. It was my impression that non-commercial or sharealike license is not appropriate for commons. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwttdz (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Share-alike files are just fine. The Flikr license is not necessarily relevant; it's perfectly okay to have a file here uploaded by its copyright holder with a different license then the file on Flikr.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
See the related discussions at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Deletion of File:Haliaeetus albicilla (Svolvær, 2012).jpg (permalink) and Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Haliaeetus albicilla (Svolvær, 2012).jpg (permalink). —LX (talk, contribs) 21:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible problems

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karta1.PNG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karta2.PNG. In the United States, many maps are in the public domain. The most common cases are:...As a result of the court decisions, following parts of a map are in the public domain, and may be used freely: ...Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable. But Only those elements that involve no creativity are public domain. In Mason v Montgomery Data et al 1992, the court found that there was creativity involved in " each mapmaker's selection of sources, interpretation of those sources, discretion in reconciling inconsistencies among the sources, and skill and judgment in depicting the information." The ruling in that case describes a similar circumstance to this map: "But the evidence in this case demonstrates that Mason exercised sufficient creativity when he created his maps. In his deposition and affidavit, Mason explained the choices that he independently made to select information from numerous and sometimes conflicting sources, and to depict that information on his maps.10 Mason's compilation of the information on his maps involved creativity that far exceeds the required minimum level." In other words, if the map is just an outline of the state of Texas and some dots for cities, it's ineligible for protection. But if the author puts skill into selecting elements to include on the map, then it's copyrighted. --UserB (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Strannik27 (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright on Euro Currency - German

Hi,

Hope I've reached the correct place. I want to upload a scan of the German "Euro Commemorative Coin for 2013. Other images I've seen (e.g. the Finland 2012 Coin) on this page €2_commemorative_coins are marked as own work. Does that sound correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipg27 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 21 February 2013‎ (UTC)

No, scanning someone else's work does not make it your own work. Note that the copyright of the national side of Euro coins is determined by the individual Member States, and the situation with respect to German coins is uncertain. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Isaiah Bowman Collection

Hi,

I found an extraordinary photograph from 1907 in

http://collections.lib.uwm.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ags_south/id/577/rec/5

Can I upload this photograph to commons? --Createaccount 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can use {{PD-US}} on this image, as it seems likely it was published before 1923. Or, to be as specific as possible, {{PD/1923|1950}} --moogsi (blah) 22:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Suspected copyrighted images

Can I ask here questions on images I doubt to be a copyrighted one? I was trying to upload some images of Sithara (singer) I took today and on the way I noticed File:Sithara holding a thampura.jpg which links to an external source for related images. I am completely unsure if it is a copyrighted one (from that external link) or not. Could you help me? Thanks.Vanischenu mTalk 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The file is copyrighted and a license from the its author is required for it to be kept here. Ruslik (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. How about File:Sithara performing with Shankar Mahadevan.jpg?Vanischenu mTalk 11:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This one claims "own work". It is ok if taken by the uploader. Ruslik (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Sithara Krishnakumar.jpg claims "own work", even though it is a derivative of File:Sithara holding a thampura.jpg. Further, those images where tagged for getting OTRS permission only after this post was started. A similar case, where a photo of Santhosh Pandit which claims "own work" is there at enwp, but http://santhoshpandit.blogspot.in/ hosts a bigger one there. I do not know if there is a search engine to look for similar images (google once did, but now it doesn't). I think I have seen, but I don't know which one is the template for tagging pictures with unbelievable copyright claims (like an own work photo of 'Earth as seen from Moon' and so on.)Vanischenu mTalk 14:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, man! this search lead me to File:Sp.jpg, which shows that the same bigger image of Santhosh Pandit was once hosted here in Commons.Vanischenu mTalk 14:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking through some humorous AfCs, I found File:CathMontgomery.jpg which too is claimed to be "own". The link to Flikr, reveals even more photos to strengthen the doubt.···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 15:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sharky60 uploads

I have uploaded the following files which have been promptly deleted. I am new at this, but read everywhere that OWN work is covered under CC-BY-SA licence and publishable. Than I am wondering why these articles have been deleted though they were scanned copies of pieces I have written (including the pix which I have taken)? The last file was a newspaper article from which I received permission of reprint on wiki (I sent the email to the permission....address). Can anyone give me further explanations. Thank you. Furtermore these articles are published on another site. thanks 

  File:Sognando la California 2.jpg
   File:Barracuda giganti 2.jpg
   File:Barracuda giganti 1.jpg
   File:Emozioni a Palm Beach 1.jpg
   File:Emozioni a Palm Beach 2.jpg
   File:First time in the USA.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharky60 (talk • contribs) 2013-03-15 23:40:30 (UTC)

Hi. Do you have the COM:OTRS ticket number yet? (It probably came from the e-mail reply you got when you sent the permission to the Commons permission address.) It will help make sure the administrators are (hopefully) all on the same page. --Closeapple (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you Closeapple for your comment. I sent permissions-commons@wikimedia.org copy of the note sent by the editor of the newspaper giving permission for use on the First time in the USA.jpg, but did not receive any tkt number from them. I put a note on the article but it was still deleted by Fastily...do not know why?? the rest of the work is my own so do not know why the flaggin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharky60 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 16 March 2013‎ (UTC)

The reason that files like this get deleted so quickly is that Commons gets a lot of uploads from confused users that scan or photograph or crop someone else's copyrighted work and then claim "own work" based on having scanned or photographed or changed it. You happen to be the rare exception: From what you have said, you have scanned what is really your own original work, after it has been passed through another medium. An OTRS ticket should hold off the wolves at the door until a real decision is made: Once you have sent e-mail with the filenames you are uploading, put {{subst:OP}} somewhere in the information text on that file. Hopefully that will give fair warning not to "speedy delete" the file. --Closeapple (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A copyright concern?

File:Average Percent Reduction in Social Security Benefits.png and File:Percent of Tax Units with a Tax Increase (Current Policy).png ‎are marked sourced to http://www.momentoftruthproject.org/sites/default/files/Measuring%20Up.pdf -- which is certainly correct, since that document has the same graphs with the same fonts, colors, etc. The name of the very infrequent editor who uploaded these doesn't appear to match any of the principals at the Moment of Truth Project. Additionally, I don't see a particular claim of copyright, nor of free license, etc., in that PDF or on the MoT website. This is not an area I know much about, so any assistance would be appreciated. --Joe Decker (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any tires to Moment of Truth, is there an issue with having a tie to the group and uploading a photo? Is that considered a conflict of interest? Just a question, thanks, - Taylor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdankmyer (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 March 2013‎ (UTC)

The .pdf above lists the sources as "Source: Tax Policy Center" and "Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Policy." If these are USA federal, then they should be listed as author with a PD-USgov licence tag I would think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Money of Tunisia

Hello. There is a lot of derivative work on Category:Money of Tunisia, but there is nothing about money of Tunisia on Commons:Currency. Should we tag for speedy delete every coin and banknote that can't be proven to be on the public domain? — Ralgis [mantis Religiosa] — 21:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's probably best to make a mass deletion request instead of lots of speedy ones to make sure that it gets reviewed as a whole. This also means you have a precedent to link back to for subsequent uploads. I did something quite similar with Commons:Deletion requests/Iraqi currency a couple of years back. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
A quick skim through this, and a search for relevant terms appears to show no exemption for currency. I have no idea if this is the entirety of the relevant legislation, IP or otherwise (e.g. counterfeiting laws could also be relevant).
Government works are copyrighted. The exact term of such copyright isn't clear to me. If currency isn't a government work, then sculptors/illustrators/engravers need to be considered. It does seem like many of the images could be copyrighted --moogsi (blah) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Pre-1923 sculpture installed in the US protected by foreign copyright

This seems complicated to me, but I think there is a clear answer to this.

File:Gasson_in_the_morning.jpg was an image of the eagle outside Gasson College. It was deleted as the photograph is a derivative work of the sculpture per no FoP in the US. This bronze was definitely made in 1912 or before, so I was going to request undeletion on this, but..

The earliest record of this eagle being anywhere is outside Larz Anderson's house in Tokyo. He brought it back with him to the US in 1913. (This is an image of the eagle in Anderson's Japanese garden in Brookline, MA). If the sculpture is Japanese, then the sculptor must have died before 1962 for it to be PD, which is far from certain.

Is the photo rightly deleted as a derivative work? --moogsi (blah) 01:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it should be undeleted. Actually, the earliest claim I've found is 1909 in Massachusetts. I was wracking my brain on pre-1971 Japanese copyright law for a half hour, before I came across this: The "Japanese garden" where the sculpture first appears, is actually Larz Anderson Park (i.e. Larz Anderson's home in the early 20th century) in Brookline, Massachusetts. Not only is the cited book ("Larz Anderson Park" by Evan P. Ide) about this location, but I've come across "More Than a Mascot: A Symbol For the University" on the Boston College website:

In October 1954 Boston College received the statue of an eagle that had been in a Japanese garden on the estate of Larz Anderson in Brookline, Massachusetts. The garden was designed and planted in 1907, and a photograph in 1909 clearly shows the eagle. This happened before Anderson’s appointment as ambassador to Japan (1912-1913).

It therefore appears that:

  1. The sculpture is a work published (as in being transferred to a member of the public) in the United States and prior to 1910.
  2. If it was on display at Anderson's house in Tokyo, that is an ambassador's house, and therefore arguably U.S. territory under international conventions. In other words, it was never actually in Japan for first publication purposes.
  3. At some point during this time, obviously the sculpture was in a position accessible enough to the public that copies could be made, since there are photographs of it in the "Japanese garden". Public exhibition to the point where copies could be made constitutes publication under pre-1978 U.S. law.
  4. If even that wasn't public enough, then: It certainly appeared by 1960 on the Boston College campus. That is much more blatantly public exhibition, and was still pre-1978 without a copyright notice.
So, in any case, it appears to be a U.S. work whose first publication was in the U.S., not Japan, and prior to 1978 without a copyright notice. Public domain. --Closeapple (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much. It seems like the text of the wiki article w:Larz_Anderson#The BC Eagle is (perhaps) based on a misapprehension about the statue ever being in Japan. It doesn't seem to cite a decent source, anyway. I should have read the book but I had already read the contrary information somewhere else. Sorry for the wild eagle chase --moogsi (blah) 12:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Another exotic license

File:Babe Ruth Gov.jpg uses one-of-the-kind

This work is from the Florida Memory Project hosted at the State Archive of Florida, and is released to the public domain in the United States under the terms of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes. See Copyright.

Note: In accordance with the provisions of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given."

license which seems to be some strange cross between PD and {{Attribution}} license. Is it equivalent to {{PD-FLGov}}? --Jarekt (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of the items might also be covered by PD-FLGov but no, this tag is taken from the text of the Florida law surrounding the Florida State Photographic Collection . The law citation is specified in the tag and that is the text of the law. This is a valid, separate license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
If it is valid than May be we should put it in a template. I will create {{PD-FLGov-PhotoColl}} for this template. --Jarekt (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but... do we know which the "provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4)" are? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 09:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The cited law is 257.35: Florida State Archives. I'm not familiar with Florida Statutes citation, but: Since 257.35 is chapter 257, section 35, I'm assuming that paragraph (1)(b) refers to subsection (1) paragraph (b) "Preserve and administer such records ... and permit them, at reasonable times and under the supervision of the division, to be inspected and copied." and subsection (4) refers to "The division shall make certified copies ... upon the application of any person ... . The division may charge a fee for this service based upon the cost of service." --Closeapple (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This FSA "public domain" notice has two much bigger problems: (1) The wording of this notice appears to be false; it is not "released to the public domain" under Florida law — in fact, an attribution requirement is right there in 257.35(6). (2) What evidence do we have that the Florida State Archives (or other archivists in the chain of possession) acquired copyright at the same time they acquired the physical specimens? After 1978, and maybe before, a state cannot invalidate or grant licenses for a copyright it doesn't hold. If the original physical version of work is transferred to another person, did U.S. law pre-1978 consider the copyright to have transfer with it? (That seems to depend on which court happened to be deciding, and was a mess: see en:Copyright Act of 1976#Transfer of copyright.) Also, does it matter if the negatives were separated from the original prints? Would separating possession of the two, so that two different parties had a physical representation of the work, but neither one released them to the public yet, still mean that a "publication" occurred under pre-1978 U.S. copyright law? If it was publicly exhibited pre-1978 without a copyright notice, that would solve it: Public exhibition where people could re-photograph and copy was "publication" in the U.S. pre-1978, but not afterwards. But U.S. works "unpublished" as of 2003, regardless of when created, retain their copyrights for 70 years after the death of a known author, even if they were subsequently published. --Closeapple (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

there is also {{Image from the Florida Photographic Collection}} template that does not claim to be a license, but is based on the same Florida law. It suggests {{CC-by-sa}} license instead PD. To me this still sounds more like {{Attribution}} license. I will invite user:Andy Dingley, who wrote {{Image from the Florida Photographic Collection}} to this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This comes up about once a year. It can be reduced to, "a bunch of amateurs at Wikipedia think that Florida State Archives aren't competent to do their jobs". Way to go, if you want to encourage museum and archive involvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
What's their job? Surely not to carefully check their works to see whether or not they can use them, given as they have no reason to do that (the 13th Amendment protects them in most cases) and every reason not to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
May be if we fix those licenses so they answer more questions than they raise, Than the "bunch of amateurs at Wikipedia" would not be rediscovering the same inconsistencies. Andy if you read the initial post, the whole discussion started at strange PD license (not using a template) that requires attribution. Since bunch of files use it I moved the content of it to {{PD-FLGov-PhotoColl}} and then we found {{Image from the Florida Photographic Collection}} which seems to be related. It would be nice if we could reconcile those two templates, and possibly merge them. --Jarekt (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree it's not a PD license -- it does require attribution. I would presume they would make the conditions clear to anyone who wanted to donate photos. A good many of them are probably PD-FLGov before they get there but probably not all of them are, so PD-FLGov should only be an additional tag if we know the author is from one of the Florida departments which is not allowed to keep the copyright. But I don't see a serious issue in regards to this being a valid tag; I don't see why we can't take their permission on its face. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that they give us "their permission" though — they don't even say explicitly that following FSA's own requirements for a specific copy gets you the kind of license from the copyright holder that you'd get if the State of Florida was the originator. In fact, they seem to go to some effort to dodge the question at Disclaimer and Copyright Information, saying:
  • "Some of the images may be protected by copyright."
  • "Florida is not responsible or liable for any claim, loss, or damage arising from the use of these images"
  • "The use of photographs and other materials in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images."
  • "Please contact the Archives if you have any questions regarding the credit and use of any material presented on this Web site."
Redacted the above after my note below. It sounds more like someone thought they'd dive into the Florida Statutes and, from that, make the leap to assuming that the copyright terms of the donation arrangements to the FSA are what we wish they were, regardless of the FSA web page saying it's not necessarily so. --Closeapple (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Andy Dingley: What is it that comes up once a year? I can't tell which way you meant it, or which way would annoy GLAMs more: Donating a bunch of copies to Commons and having a bunch of it deleted for no-proof-of-license problems, or having a bunch of the institution's holdings imported to Commons under a "free license" and then catching Hell from donors who didn't intend or agree for the archive to grant unlimited-distribution perpetual reproduction licenses. (Well, OK, maybe both. And that's just counting the institutions who have a good grasp of what their licenses and rights are.) --Closeapple (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a regular attempt to delete some or all of the contents of Category:Images from the Florida Photographic Collection, sometimes successful, sometimes unsuccessful. One of the CfDs is here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_from_the_Florida_Photographic_Collection. The Florida archive have been made aware of this, and were puzzled by our response.
One of the more bizarre suggestions was that some images (Ted Bundy) should be removed from this group because "the licence tag contaminated them from having a clear licence" (these images were already multi-licensed as PD, from some US legal system disclosure requirement) and that this should be done by deleting all the other Florida images. Firstly this was a gross confusion over multi-licensing, but secondly I have no interest in Ted Bundy, and I do have an interest in the non-PD 1930s motor racing images, which we only obtain by the Florida archive licensing them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this conversation would have been much shorter if we'd heard about {{Image from the Florida Photographic Collection}} earlier, which contains the following from Andy Dingley in the documentation:

Additionally a direct request to the Florida Archives, specifically concerning use on Wikipedia / Wikicommons (13 May 2008) elicited the following response:

You may use any of the images posted on the Florida Memory Project website. The State Archives of Florida is not aware of any copyright issues with any of the images.

So in this author's opinion (Andy Dingley 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)) , that all meets the constraints of {{CC-by-sa}}, to a level appropriate for any reasonable expectation of the Wikimedia project, in terms of observing the copyright of others.

The FSA's reply makes things clearer for me. From that, it appears that the maximum restriction that FSA might know about is still no more restrictive than their own public terms for reproductions. --Closeapple (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bibliothèque nationale de France

I uploaded a photo of Australian tennis player Pat O'Hara Wood which is a public domain image from Bibliothèque nationale de France's Gallica website. I intend to upload a couple more PD images from the same source and therefore would appreciate if someone can verify if this upload was done correctly (in terms of licencing info / attribution) before I continue. Thx.--Wolbo (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks good. But the source credits agence Rol. Is there a reason to use the creator and category for agence Mondial instead of the creator and category for Rol? A U.S. status template should be added. You may also want to use Template:PD-BNF. I'm not sure about the use of PD-old-70 when no individual person is credited as author. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thx. The Agence Mondial attribution was an error and has been corrected to Agence Rol (category has also been updated). The PD-BNF template has been added. Looking into the US template, not sure yet what the appropriate one would be.--Wolbo (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
True, that's a common problem with those Gallica files. Gallica doesn't document their publication and doesn't state the specific reason why BNF has determined that they are in the public domain in France. Hence, the PD-BNF template to cover that aspect. If you assume that this particular press photo was published near the year of its creation, I suppose PD-1923 should be fine for the U.S. aspect. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yale Center for British Art

Yale Center for British Art has a free license on their digital images: [2].

Is there a license template which expresses these terms? If the artwork is PD, they also license their images this way, including photos of sculptures. It would be useful to let people know that the digital media itself is also PD, as this maximizes the number of people who can use it freely. We have >5000 files from them. --moogsi (blah) 20:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

To my understanding, the Yale Center for British Art is not providing his works under a free license in a generic way. It's simply saying that the works in the public domain can be used without any restriction (pretty obvious) and kindly asks for some kind of attribution. It seems as if no new license template but {{PD-US}} would be needed. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue is not with the PD status of the artworks, but with that of the digital media. To put it another way, is there a template that I can put on this page to adequately convey the status of the photograph, which they release on Commons-compatible terms (for any purpose, no attribution required):
Building on Yale’s commitment to open access, if a work is believed to be in the public domain and free of other restrictions, the Center’s digital images of the work in its online collection catalogue are made freely available.
To quote the above:
As far as the Center is concerned, you may download and use the Center’s image(s) of works in the public domain for any purpose.
Additionally, the Terms of Use.
Perhaps I'm misreading it, but it seems like this adds up to a declaration of Public Domain as regards the "digital media" on the site.
Can I use anything which isn't {{PD-because}}? {{Attribution}} occurred to me, but they only politely request attribution, and don't require it --moogsi (blah) 22:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
And it's not always obvious that images of works in the public domain can be used for any purpose, at least outside the US: Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs --moogsi (blah) 22:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

UK film

My question concerns the late Frank Thornton, for whom I'm seeking a free-use photo. According to UK copyright law a film/cinematographic work that's over 50 years old falls into the public domain. Thronton's filmography dates back before 1963, including with the film Battle of the V-1 from 1958. Can we know for sure that the movie or the 1954 film Radio Cab Murder (also made in the UK) is in the public domain? Lpdrew (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The webpage you linked ("fact sheet P-10: Copyright Duration") is not about the UK law, it is about the Berne convention. It does hint in the right direction by adding this example : "For example, in the UK most work is protected for the life of the author plus 70 years." That website also has a webpage about the UK law : "Fact sheet P-01: UK Copyright Law", with a paragraph "6. Duration of copyright", subparagraph "iii. Films": "70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last principal director, author or composer dies.". -- Asclepias (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Berne convention linked by Lpdrew sets a minimal protection standard which (not only) UK copyright law exceeds by far. The director of Battle of the V-1 and Radio Cab Murder, Vernon Sewell, died in 2001, so these films are not in the public domain but protected until at least the year 2071 (protection term might be even longer if an author or composer died later or is still alive). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh my! I guess a fair use photo will have to be used. And thanks for clarifying...the link I provided was the top google search result for UK copyright law. However, if I can find any TV productions before 1963 that Thornton starred in, those programs may be public domain because UK copyright applies "50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast was made." Lpdrew (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

GFDL only

meta:Licensing update says: "This is to amend site-wide licensing terms and terms of use for all projects as follows: 2. to require continued dual-licensing of new community edits in this manner, but allow CC-BY-SA-only content from third parties (However, GFDL-only content from third parties is no longer allowed)". But it seems we still accepts GFDL 1.2 only contents. Why? I think meta:Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Images is about existing contents; not about new uploads. JKadavoor Jee 07:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As explicitly stated in meta:Licensing update/Questions and Answers#Images, the migration does not affect which image licenses are allowed to be used on Wikimedia projects. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
But unfortunately I can't see a clear guideline at Commons:Copyright_tagsdeed.en. It says "Please note: The GFDL is rather impractical for images and short texts, because it requires the full text of the GFDL to be published along with the image. This is prohibitive for print media: in order to use a single image in a newspaper, a full page containing the GFDL would have to be printed. To resolve this, please dual-license your work under GFDL and an equivalent Creative Commons license like CC-by-sa-3.0 (see below). This helps to make your work usable not only freely, but also easily." Further it says even GNU recommends FAL, not GFDL for artistic works. "The FAL is recommended by the Free Software Foundation: We don't take the position that artistic or entertainment works must be free, but if you want to make one free, we recommend the Free Art License." JKadavoor Jee 12:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Works licensed only under the GFDL are accepted, but such licensing is discouraged. What's unclear? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The distinction is between media uploads and text edits:
  • Uploads to Wikimedia projects have traditionally allowed the author to choose any free license they wish. License migration did not change your ability to choose: You could choose GFDL before the "license migration" and can still do so after, but it is not recommended, because it was not designed for non-text media and has some cumbersome verbiage that has to appear with every copy of a work.
  • Other types of contributions (that is, text "edits" like articles) have always been subject to the license terms pre-selected by the project: Before the license migration, that was GFDL; after license migration, it is GFDL+CC-BY-SA "dual licensed" or CC-BY-SA alone depending on the history of the work being edited.
  • Because the migration was done through (if I remember correctly) a special GFDL version that had to be taken advantage of within a one-time window of opportunity, the Wikimedia projects used the opportunity not just to dual-license the pages with mandatory GFDL licensing, but to also dual-license any uploads that a licensor had chosen to license as GFDL "or any later version" as well. That is why you see dual licensing on so many older uploads. --Closeapple (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The prohibition on GFDL contributions does not apply to uploads. It applies to all the other kinds of contributions, however, because pure-GFDL works can't mix with pure-CC-BY-SA works, and CC-BY-SA is the standard license now. If someone were to now copy-and-paste a "pure" GFDL work (i.e. something that wasn't migrated to dual-license) into a current Wikipedia article, the terms of the GFDL would preclude CC-BY-SA and vice-versa, causing a dual-licensed page to revert to GFDL-only, or causing a CC-BY-SA-only page to have no valid license left at all. --Closeapple (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello,
I'm hoping I'm reporting this correctly (if not apologies),
Toadams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
has uploaded File:Longfield_academy.gif and File:Leigh_Logo_Hi_Res_copy.png
under "own work" but has just copied them off the schools site http://www.longfieldacademy.org http://www.leighacademy.org.uk
Should these be deleted ?,
Thanks,
Kindest Regards, Davey2010 Talk 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they should be moved to English Wikipedia, where U.S. copyright status is the standard, and therefore threshold of originality will probably make both of these "public domain" over there. (The Commons rule is that something has to be public domain in both the U.S. and the country of the work, and the UK has a very, very low threshold of originality.) Anyone want to do the deed? --Closeapple (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright tags for US published works

Hi folks,

A file like File:Brooklyn Museum - On the Heights - Charles Courtney Curran - overall.jpg can be hosted here because it was first published in the US (its country of origin) before 1923, hence {{PD-1923}}.

Should we add an additional tag indicating it is also PD in other countries per PD-old-70, or is it wrong/unnecessary?

Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the country of origin is USA, no additional tags are required. Ruslik (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Required, no. But it was not my question :) Jean-Fred (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
In general, there seem to be two perspectives: (a) provide the minimum copyright information necessary to prove it's OK for Commons to host a file (b) provide as much copyright information as possible, for the benefit of re-users. Obviously (a) is the priority, but (b) is certainly an issue. Partly because of this I think we should encourage tags like {{PD-old-auto-1923}}. Rd232 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah thanks. I thought I had a look at {{PD-old-auto-1923}}, and concluded that it more or less implied that the USA were not the country of origin − the way {{PD-two|PD-old-70|PD-1923}} does. My mistake then, PD-old-auto-1923 is appropriate for the situation. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Trudeau

We don't have any decent images of her. I found this one and many more pre-78 with a simple Ebay search for 'Margaret Trudeau'. Many are bad images and many have watermarks. Would anyone like to help find a good one that qualifies under Template:PD-US-no notice? Would the one above qualify or would it risk DR?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth contacting the Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum project? Ford and Trudeau overlapped for years, and it seems very likely they have photos of some state function or another with Margaret Trudeau present. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Fototermin Landtagsgebäude Niedersachsen}}

Sorry, but I can't speak German. Could anyone explain what this template ({{Fototermin Landtagsgebäude Niedersachsen}}) means and how it translates into a valid commons license? Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a license template, but just an information template about a photoshooting by Wikipedians in a state parliament of Germany. See here, File:13-03-19-landtag-niedersachsen-by-RalfR-003.jpg, for an example. --Túrelio (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I thought it included some information about the licensing. As that's not the case, this image is a derivative work and, assuming that FOP does not apply here, we should assess whether some {{PD-Germany}} applies. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Am I missing anything? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 08:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've contacted the uploader. He will research the name of the painter. --Túrelio (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not only said image. There are plenty of similar derivative works. If the art work is in the public domain, the derivative work can be applied whatever compatible license. Otherwise they'll have to be deleted. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 16:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pascal Sebah

There are two - arguably three - major photographers with the name Sébah: Pascal Sebah, his brother his son, Jean Pascal Sebah, and Pascal's brother Cosmi.

We seem to be presuming that if the work is signed Sebah, or even Sebah & Joaillier (which is a partnership entered into by Jean at around the age of 16, and with a Frenchman who also might hold copyright) - that we can use the death date for Pascal Sebah and claim it's out of copyright.

This is not actually true, Jean Sèbah died in 1947, and I believe still holds copyright in Turkey, and don't see how he wouldn't. Polycarpe Joallier died in 1904, so he's probably alright, but...

I don't see any justification for how Jean Pascal Sebah's work is out of copyright. The linked category specifically gives the information needed to see this is a copyvio.

How the hell was this not spotted years ago? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons has a lot of copyvio. Why should it be surprising that a photographer who can be confused with another photographer might have some of his works mistakenly uploaded? When you say "this is a copyvio", that's clearly false, as some of the files--like the one dated 1873, a year after J. Pascal Sebah was born--are clearly out of copyright around the world. You're welcome to go through the files and find the ones that are in copyright in their source nation and nominated them for DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I do get grumpy after insomnia. But we should sort this out and move stuff to en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:The murder of Jayavira Bandara Mudali by the Portuguese.PNG

Dear friends, I uploaded this file few months ago and I have noticed a banner in red saying "PD-Art template without parameter: please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States"

Authour of this image is Philippus Baldaeus a Dutch minister. He passed away in 1672. Please tell me how to resolve this issue. What do I need to type?

Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed the tag to work. It still needs categories though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add categories Nishadhi (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Israeli Air Force logos

Posing a question to the community from a discussion that started here over the file below:


This image being the subject of discussion below, and since it will likely be deleted at some point, a copy has been uploaded to a free image host here so that editors reviewing this in the future will be able to see the image being discussed. – JBarta (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Question would also pertain to the following three files (and maybe more) currently licensed on en:WP as non-free logos:

File:The Scorpion Squadron.gif
File:Knights of the North Squadron.png
File:Bat Squadron Israel.gif

The question is, given that each of the four squadrons were formed (and hence likely the logos) before 1962, is it correct to suggest the above four files are now public domain and should be licensed as PD-IsraelGov? – JBarta (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

All of my detailed comments as to why these files (as well as The Goring Ram Squadron.gif which I created) are correctly licensed as "Non-free symbol" (non-free fair use) and not "PD-IsraelGov" can be found in the earlier discussion here in which I basically point out that the License Agreement on the Israeli Air Force website from which these images all come states: "According to copyright laws, including the Israeli court as well as international treaties, the copyright of IAF publications, including all information published in this service (i.e., the web site) belong to the Department of Security and Israeli Defense Force. These copyrights also apply to text, images, illustrations, maps, sound samples, video or audio bits, graphics, "Flash" applets and software applications ("The protected material"). All rights reserved to the state of Israel. Department of Security ©2003". As the copyright notice specifically includes "images", "illustrations", and "graphics" that would indicate that these logos are under copyright and only eligible for use on WP as a non-free "fair use" illustrations.
As Goring Ram A-4 Hatzerim 201206.jpg also is of one of these copyright protected designs the same licensing restriction should apply to that image as well. It is also unlikely that this particular logo was "created before 1962" as it clearly depicts a swept wing A-4 Skyhawk, a type that this unit did not operate until it was reactivated at Hatzerim in August 1978 as "the IAF's eighth and last A-4 Skyhawk squadron." (During this Squadron's two previous active periods if flew the Boeing-Stearman Kaydet (a 1930's radial engine prop bi-wing trainer) in 1956, and the French built Fouga Magister, a straight wing V-tail jet trainer, during its brief six-day war activation in 1967.) That being the case, under the provisions of §42 of the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007 the Israeli government's copyright protection of this design would not expire any earlier than 2028. Centpacrr (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Good call on the age of the logo. You make a good case above that the logo for the Goring Ram may have been redesigned after 1962... possibly even first designed after 1962. Might also call into question whether or not all (or most) of these logos were designed well after their squadrons were created. I don't know. – JBarta (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
As there is no evidence to support that "PD-IsraelGov" is the correct licensing for Goring Ram A-4 Hatzerim 201206.jpg, you will need to change it to something else although I'm not sure what (if any) "non free fair use" category would be appropriate other than "Non-free symbol" and even that one is doubtful under the circumstances. Centpacrr (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Goring Ram A-4 Hatzerim 201206.jpg has been reworked and uploaded as a non-free file to en:WP. The two articles that used the image... 147 Squadron (Israel) and List of Israeli Air Force aircraft squadrons have been updated with the new file. The small GIF version will be deleted as an orphaned non-free file, and I've nominated the original file, File:Goring Ram A-4 Hatzerim 201206.jpg for deletion citing the issue you pointed out above. Unless you have more to add, we'll say that's a wrap... – JBarta (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I assume this means that the "Non-free symbol" licensing of File:The Scorpion Squadron.gif, File:Knights of the North Squadron.png, and File:Bat Squadron Israel.gif is no longer being challenged as well as no evidence has been provided that they were created more than fifty years ago and are thus still copyright protected under both §42 of the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007 and as stated in the IAF License Agreement. To change them to "PD-IsraelGov" would first require affirmative proof that their copyrights have expired. Centpacrr (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You made a reasonable case that one of the logos may have been created after 1962, thus opening the possibility that some, most or all of those logos were created after their squadrons were created or after 1962. In the face of this uncertainty, I'm content to see them all as non-free logos. I might also mention... again... because you keep bringing it up, that the IAF website is irrelevant here. In this and all cases, copyright law takes precedence. – JBarta (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
With respect I think I made far more than a "reasonable case that one of the logos may have been created after 1962" but in fact a very positive case that the affirmative evidence proves that it was not -- and could not -- have been produced before 1978. The more important point, however, is that an essential prerequisite for applying "PD-IsraelGov" in this case, or any PD licensing template in any other situation, to a file is that whoever does so is obliged to be able to provide affirmative proof that the file is in fact PD based on the expiration of its copyright term or for whatever other reason as opposed to just speculating that such is the case. In other words the burden of proof is on the editor who makes the claim that a file is PD, not on the rest of the community to prove that the file is copyright protected. Following that simple policy should eliminate 99% of the copyright disputes on WP.
Now as for your contention that your personal interpretation of copyright law "trumps" a published user agreement or copyright notice I believe that WP's policy and guidelines require the following. Whenever such a copyright notice is found, it is then incumbent upon any WP contributor who wants to claim that a covered file is actually PD under applicable copyright law to: A) present an absolutely "airtight" case with no holes whatsoever that they are correct, and; B) is then further obligated lay out that case to the community for comment and consensus before using the file in any WP article. This is especially true when the copyright claim is made by a government as it was in this case as this should be given extra weight and credence. Upon my investigation in this case I was able to find compelling evidence that the Government of Israel was correct about the copyright status of this image as not yet being free under §42 of the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007 as it was not only not produced before 1962, it could not have been produced any earlier than 1978. Thus your "speculation" that it was "PD-IsraelGov" because you surmised that it had been produced before 1962 proved to be just false speculation. Such a blatant "cart before the horse" approach is just not good enough to meet the policies and guidelines of WP for the use of copyrighted material. So again let me point out that the "burden of proof" is always on the contributor or proponent to be able to show that an image file is actually PD if that is what he or she claims, and not on the community to be able to prove the opposite. Centpacrr (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-Italy}} vs it:Template:PD-Italia-film

{{PD-Italy}} seems to apply only to works which do not have "artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality" (simple photos). it:Template:PD-Italia-film seems to state that this applies to ALL films, regardless of artistic merit. {{PD-Italy}} is the natural substitute for this template when transferring PD-Italia-film images from it.wiki. But do they actually state the same thing? Are films always "simple photos" or not? --moogsi (blah) 07:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Both tags refer to the same bit of the Italian law, yes. PD-Italy does mention film frames of film stock. The English translation of the law says "stills of cinematographic film". I've wondered about that (whether it's more like news footage, or do full-up artistic movie frames get the same treatment) but the English translation at least does seem to point to the shorter protection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I read the relevant sections and it does seem like films are 70 pma in a normal sort of way, but an individual frame of film is not afforded the same protection. There is no contradiction between the templates at least --moogsi (blah) 09:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Valid?

I'd like to call your attention about this picture. It's licensed in flickr under a compatible license (CC-BY-SA-2.0) but includes the following statement in the picture page: This photograph can be used for publications, including this copyright statement: “©PromoMadrid, author Max Alexander”. Is such a statement mandatory? What do you think? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

While not mandatory, a statement about the desired text of attribution is totally in line with Creative Commons. Unlike a total waiver of copyrights by releasing a work into the public domain, works under a Creative Commons license are still copyrighted but the author permits using them under the terms of the specific license. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I understand your argumentation, but we're not going to include the desired text in every wikipedia article including the picture. That way we'd be breaching the required attribution conditions, wouldn't we? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say it has to be on the picture; it says it has to be in the publication. A book would likely put it on the copyright page, we put it on the file page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes that's right. A single attribution at the Commons file page is sufficient. We usually don't credit the photographers in Wikipedia articles, unless they are really notable or the article is about the photographer. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should tack on all the attribution lines to the bottom of every Wikipedia page automatically. But we've sort of set the standard for using CC-BY-SA files already, and given that few have really objected, I think we're okay as we are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

See also Commons:Credit line. Rd232 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Probable screenshot

File:AOI image OK for conformal coating inspection.png appears to be a screenshot from software, but the uploader claims it is original work. I haven't challenged a licence on commons before, so I'm not sure what the procedure is., --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If that is indeed a screenshot made by the uploader using the software, I think it would be ok - just simple text and a simple border; the blurry pc board in the background would be de minimis. However a glance at the uploader's talk page indicates another user believes it was taken from a website - an entirely different matter. Dankarl (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Edseeman (talk · contribs)

I don't understand what is wrong with anything I have submitted. It is all too legal for me to comprehend. If someone can explain to me what violations I have committed with my uploads and entries I will gladly explain. I have complete rights to all that I have created since I am both Ed Seeman and Eduardo Cemano. Regarding any Frank Zappa material is concerned, as his personal filmmaker during our 1967 1968 collaboration, I have contractual permission to show certain short films we created together. Please advise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edseeman (talk • contribs)

I think you talk about Commons:Deletion requests/File:ED SEEMAN BIO.jpg because thats your only contribution. Talk there. This page is about copyright questions, the deletion discussion is about project scope. Commons is not a place for such text files. --Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of derivative work, i.e. picture of a commercial product (United States)

Folks,

A little help on understanding copyright of derivative works in the United States. In particular I took a picture of a couple of Dairgold milk containers for the Wikipedia article on the company. I recently received a notification of possible copyright violation for this picture. I have looked though the discussion pages but can't/didn't find clarity on whether you can post pictures of (probably copyrighted) commercial products (in the United States). Would it matter if it subject of the picture or incidental in the picture? Seems like there are lots of pictures of commercial products in the Wikimedia files. Thanks.

I presume you mean File:Dg milk containers.jpg. The old bottle is probably ok either as simple text or no notice and could be cropped out separately, but the modern carton is clearly copyrighted and can't stay here. You could try moving to WP as fair use but they are pretty stringent as to what they permit. Product labels here do not get as much scrutiny as they should get. Dankarl (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Dankarl, the bottle is fine as there it does not get over the bar of threshold of originality, however the carton does and is clearly copyrighted, I think a claim of fair use would be acceptable at enwp. LGA talkedits 01:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Well I have an answer to the particular, but I asked a question about the general. In the United States when can you have a picture that includes part of a copyrighted image? (So I presume making the whole picture a derivative work.) If so how much? Does it matter if the originally copyrighted material is only a small part of the whole? If there are multiple original copyrighted works is it a derivative of all the works or each work individually? Thanks.
Quick and incomplete answer: if the copyrighted content is a focus of the image it is probably infringing. Incidental inclusion of copyrighted content in a photograph of something else, particularly at low resolution or out of focus or including only a small part of the original may be acceptable. In particular, store shelf displays (not including posters etc.) are often ok. See Commons:De minimis for a more complete explanation. Per your last query, it is certainly a derivative of each included work individually. I'm not sure what you mean by "of all the works" but if you are thinking of a photograph of an assembly of copyrighted works, then if that assembly was copyrightable then it is a derivative of that copyright also. Dankarl (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You'll find a very good explanation at Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging. Cheers -- Orionist ★ talk 22:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah just the thing to mostly explain copyright on packaging. Thanks!
I think the photo is probably OK. There are bits of copyrightable stuff on the carton but the photograph is not particularly focusing on any of them. This is what the Ets-Hokins decision was about, mostly -- only photos primarily of the label would be copyrightable. I could see some dissension on the carton, as it is there to show what the carton looks like, but the focus is on the whole carton and most of the elements are not really copyrightable, and the photo does not seem to be focusing on the ones that are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

www.copa2014.gov.br

There are about 300 files sourced to the Copa2014 website, which displays very clearly that all content is CC-BY-SA however I don't think that this is the case; the site contains photos and logos that are copyright to FIFA and others. for example on this page. The Logo on the main page is, I suspect copyright to FIFA. So my question is do we need to get a type of ORTS notice from the website verifying what is and what is not covered. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 07:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As this is a Brazilian government website and not a FIFA website, you're right to question their use of the images. The site is licensed this way as part of a government initiative for all their content. If what they actually mean is "everything the government did is CC-BY-SA, but that's not everything on the site", with no disclaimer to that effect, then they deserve a slap and a place in Commons:Bad sources. I guess it's possible there is an agreement with FIFA and other sources to relicense their content. --moogsi (blah) 08:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
From what I can tell FIFA guard their IP very closely, it is unlikely they would allow it to be used in a CC-BY-SA way, what is there to stop someone from moveing en:File:WC-2014-Brasil.svg to commons and saying as it appears on the www.copa2014.gov.br site it it licensed CC-BY-SA. LGA talkedits 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems like careless on the part of the Copa2014 site. We can assume they have rights to use FIFA content, but not to license it as CC-BY-SA; we'd need OTRS confirmation of that if it's actually the case. Rd232 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday, I contacted Mowa Press (http://www.mowasports.com) regarding images from this Brazilian sports agency published at http://www.copa2014.gov.br/pt-br/noticia/com-gols-de-fred-e-oscar-brasil-sai-na-frente-no-amistoso-contra-italia (see credits: "Foto: Mowa Press"). I asked if they know that images from Mowa Press are used at this portal from Brazilian government and if Mowa Press is fully aware that these images are licensed under {{Cc-by-3.0-br}} = free to copy, distribute, transmit, remix, adapt and to make commercial use of these images. I asked also if there is a special agreement between Mowa Press and copa2014.gov.br to publish some selected works for "free" at copa2014.gov.br. I got an answer from Eduardo Bernardes, per http://br.linkedin.com/in/edubernardes a Business Development Manager from Mowa.
He wrote:

“ O acordo citado não existe. O que oferecemos como serviço para nossos parceiros é o uso exclusivamente NOTICIOSO de nossas fotos mediante correta creditação para a MoWA Press ou MoWA Sports. Qualquer outro uso não está coberto e deve ser negociado conosco caso a caso." ”

—Eduardo Bernardes, MoWa Sports

[Translated] The cited agreement doesn´t exist. What we offer as a service for our partners is the exclusive use of our photos for news through correct crediting MoWa Press or Mowa Sports. Any other use is not covered and must be negotiated case by case with us.(screenshot of conversation, if desired, available)

As I understand, copa2014.gov.br seems to be a customer of MoWA but is abusing contract and/or licensing conditions. The whole thing seems to be buggy. At copa2014.gov.br we have a mixture of works by copa2014.gov.br and "other sources". Another example: http://www.copa2014.gov.br/pt-br/noticia/novas-imagens-da-arena-fonte-nova-mostram-iluminacao-interna-confira = credits: "Natália Arjones/Arena Fonte Nova/Divulgação" and sourced with http://360.io/HYnzLq (a 360-panorama of the stadium Arena Nova made by Natália Arjones). Or http://www.copa2014.gov.br/pt-br/noticia/primeiros-camarotes-da-arena-fonte-nova-estao-prontos-veja-fotos = credits: "Erik Salles BAPRESS / Arena Fonte Nova / Divulgação" (BAPRESS is a Brazilian stock photo agency = http://www.bapress.com.br). To complete the confusion we have for example http://www.copa2014.gov.br/pt-br/noticia/obra-de-mobilidade-urbana-para-copa-avanca-em-mato-grosso = credits: "Edson Rodrigues/ Secopa-MT", which is sourced with http://www.mtnacopa.mt.gov.br/conteudo.php?sid=309&cid=81282& which itself is licensed under {{Cc-by-3.0-br}}.

Do copa2014.gov.br really has permission to publish all these works under {{Cc-by-3.0-br}}? Sometimes yes, sometimes apparently not = unclear. Additionally, sometimes a paragraph appears at the links cited above which says: "As notícias com a assinatura Portal da Copa podem ser reproduzidas desde que citada a fonte." = News which are signed with Portal da Copa may be reproduced if the source is cited. Is this a license limitation, related only to the text? Or are images included? And why we have at MoWa Press´s example the signature "Portal da Copa" and at BARPRESS´s, Natália Arjones´s and Secopa-MT´s examples not?

Concluding: Images, that a not clearly credited with "Portal da Copa" (example) need individual verification or should be deleted via unknown copyright status.

In any cases they should add to there license something like "(...) except otherwise specified and content replicated by other sources" (portuguese: "(...) exceto quando especificado em contrário e nos conteúdos replicados de outras fontes").

Btw, I already had some bad experience with buggy licensing issues of sites maintained by Brazilian government. Recent example: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by TV Brasil... Gunnex (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Blanket copyright statements should never be taken at face value, especially those at website footers instead of dedicated pages. The same applies if the site said "All rights reserved", which doesn't necessarily mean that they own the rights to every single thing on the website. Detailed copyright statements usually say something like "All content is copyrighted by such and such unless otherwise noted", but many don't bother. Blanket statements are standard practice, see for example how film studios claim to won all rights on film websites, DVD covers, trailers etc. but add attribution for the rights they don't own in the credit roll.
In any case, it's common sense to consider images on a case by case basis. Maybe the copa2014 site should add a detailed copyright statement, but they are clearly crediting the images to their owners, and that shouldn't have been ignored by our users in the first place. -- Orionist ★ talk 01:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Where from here, I am planning to go through each of them in turn and check the source page and looking for any sourcing credit, any with a credit I will nominate for deletion, the question is what to do with those images that no longer appear on the page listed as source, it could be for a number of reasons, including that copa2014.gov.br only had a time limited licence to use them. LGA talkedits 01:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
It might be useful to look at their Flickr stream. You won't find agency/stock/FIFA images there, and images are tagged one by one and clearly credited to Portal da Copa, so there's less chance of confusion. Notice that these are only stadium and construction photos, which makes sense that they'd own the rights for them, unlike other types of images. -- Orionist ★ talk 02:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have took the first few images in this list, they are all artistic representations of what the stadium will look like :
  • File:Pantanal Arena.jpg - Can't find it on the flickr feed, can find this page on the website with an different artistic view of the stadium - credited to "Divulgação".
  • File:Baixada Arena.jpg - Likewise not on flickr feed, also found similar image on this page, this time attributed to "Atlético Paranaense"
  • File:Castelao Stadium.jpg Not on Flickr feed would appear to come from the website of the designers here at least need an ORTS verification.
  • File:Amazon Arena.png - also not on Flickr feed would appear to come from the website of the designers [3]
  • File:Pernambuco Arena.jpg Can't find it on the flickr feed, can find this page on the website with an different artistic view of the stadium - credited to "Arena Pernambuco"
LGA talkedits 04:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • File:Pantanal Arena.jpg: Credited (for example) in 2009 with "GCP Arquitetos" (gallery, scroll to image 16+17, GCP designed that stadium) via portal2014.org.br (© Copyright 2009 copa2014.org.br All rights reserved), .jpg I and .jpg II (very similar, lower res). As we have no direct source link for this file it might be doubtful if this image was really published at copa2014.gov.br (and the uploader already had some bad experiences with copyrights, today with File:Village Mall.jpg, grabbed - as expressively stated by uploader - from here = .jpg, with no free license visible and declaring the file in Commons as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}...). Via site search - as I could verify: no hits. Btw, copa2014.gov.br was launched officially in 09.2011.
  • File:Baixada Arena.jpg = identical uploader and problems (no direct source link, as I could verify: no hits via site search)
  • File:Castelao Stadium.jpg = identical uploader and problems (no direct source link, as I could verify: no hits via site search)
  • File:Amazon Arena.png = identical uploader and problems (no direct source link, as I could verify: no hits via site search)
  • File:Pernambuco Arena.jpg = identical uploader and problems (no direct source link, as I could verify: no hits via site search)
Without a direct source link, a verification/review of the license is not possible. Imho, all files above a "no source"/"no license"-case.
Gunnex (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Visualizations like these are usually done by the architecture firms doing the designs. Who owns the rights to the designs and renders would depend on the contracts signed between the architects and the stadium owners/event organizers/whoever commissioned these renders, so they might be owned by the Brazilian government, but not necessarily. It's hard to tell. Anyway we need to find clear indication of their status to be able to keep them. -- Orionist ★ talk 10:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
As I don't think it is prudent to rely on claim of being on the copa2014.org.br site to be licenced CC-BY-SA I would think a bulk nomination of all the files that Soulflytribe has uploaded from copa2014.org.br under the grounds of unable to verify the sourcing/licence. I have left a note on the uploaders talk page.LGA talkedits 22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The Brazilian Government's site where I downloaded those pictures say that everything related to the World Cup can be freely published everywhere. But I don't care very much about this subject anymore, so you guys can delete everything. It's fine to me. I won't resist. Soulflytribe (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Saying it does not make it so, there are a number of examples listed above to give pause for thought on this, there are good cases for claims of fair use on all of them on projects that allow that, commons does not. I intend for starters to nominate for deletion any file sourced to www.copa2014.gov.br that looks like it was created by a third party and cant be located in use on www.copa2014.gov.br. LGA talkedits 02:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

But it's obvious that you won't find! You can't speak portuguese! Try this, my friend: go to http://www.copa2014.gov.br/, then roll the page down and you will find this: "Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil." what means: "All content available in this site is published under creative commons 3.0 license." Thanks. Soulflytribe (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
We know that the site says this, but as the conversation with Eduardo Bernardes quoted above shows, this is patently untrue. The government cannot release an image under a particular copyright if they don't own said image. Care must be taken when dealing with these sorts of issues. Copyright is a very complicated issue that takes time to understand. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"We know that the site says this, but as the conversation with Eduardo Bernardes quoted above shows, this is patently untrue. The government cannot release an image under a particular copyright if they don't own said image" That is a very serious accusation. Pay attention, you and Eduardo Bernardes are basically saying that the Brazilian Government is doing something illegal. Soulflytribe (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It is only as serious as copyright is to the Brazilian government agencies. These government offices are putting CC-BY-SA licenses uniformly on things that are clearly not works of the Brazilian government, and there is no explanation of how all these different private sources could be convinced to use the same license without any exceptions. Gunnex mentioned Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by TV Brasil as an example of how this has been a problem before. We now have a Brazilian government website saying that the photos are from MoWA, and a statement from MoWA saying that CC-BY-SA is not within the rights granted by MoWA. And also, MoWA Sports seems to test the limits of ethics also: If you view the mowasports.com website with JavaScript disabled, you'll notice that the MoWA website is acting as a search engine spam site with hidden text and links for grey-market prescription erection pills ("Viagra for sale without a prescription") and "pay-day loans" (special loans that avoid the regulations of normal loans). We don't know if MoWA has any better license from the photographers than the Brazilian government has from MoWA. As Gunnex mentioned earlier: The whole thing smells bad. Per the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, we don't accept files with this kind of questionable provenance. Let the Brazilian government and MoWA and whoever else work out their flexible legal issues among themselves; Commons is better off staying away from those photos and whatever is attached to them for now. --Closeapple (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It's crazy that you guys are actually taking Bernardes' words as the ultimate truth. Those pictures are not related to Mowa (a press office!) in any way. Bernardes is talking about something that he is not involved with and doesn't know much about it. Mowa doesn't build stadiums or have contracts with FIFA. The Brazilian Government does. South Africa's World Cup's logos and official pictures are spread around wikipedia and no one seems to complain. There are many Brazilian Government sites talking about the World Cup and all of them say that the content available is all under 3.0 license. "It is only as serious as copyright is to the Brazilian government agencies.", you say. But maybe you are wrong? I don't believe FIFA and the other companies involved would allow such illegal occurrence for so long. Those sites exist for more than 5 years now (Brazil was appointed as host in 2007). It's a tempest in a teapot. I don't have too much time today, but I will try to help you more with this. Don't delete the pictures yet, please. Soulflytribe (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
And I want to ask why people can upload those pictures to the Qatar World Cup's article at wikipedia , but not use similar pictures at Brazil's World Cup page? Why would FIFA allow the Qatarian Government, but not the Brazilian Government? Can someone enlighten me? Thanks. Soulflytribe (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, read the licensing rationale on the page. That image is used on en.wiki as fair use. It could not be hosted on Commons because Commons does not allow fair use --moogsi (blah) 16:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Archive.org

Is everything public domain in this archive? I want to use some photos from old issue of magazine. Dominikmatus (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I think there's a lot there which is not public domain. The Internet Archive Terms of Use also say: In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law. The "noncommercial" restriction is not compatible with Wikimedia projects at all, and Commons doesn't accept "fair use". However, I think there is also a lot of content at archive.org which is in the public domain, but this has to be ascertained for each individual case. In the case of your example, at a first glance I don't see why it should be PD. In fact, I don't see any notice regarding the copyright status... Gestumblindi (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Aha, thank you. Dominikmatus (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you contact the publishers [4] [5] and ask them what uses are allowed? -- Orionist ★ talk 20:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
A longer but maybe redundant expansion of the above: Considering en:Internet Archive#Omni magazine and this message archive, I would consider IA to be an archive/library rather than a republisher. Also, Fine Woodworking seems to have been uploaded by federicoleva@tiscali.it, the same user who uploaded Omni magazine discussed in those links. So, for this magazine, I'd presume the usual copyright: U.S. works published 1978 to Feburary 1989 require copyright notice or registration, but don't need both. Page 3 of this issue of Fine Woodworking has "Copyright 1987 by The Taunton Press, Inc. No reproductions without permission of The Taunton Press, Inc." I don't think there are different rules for periodicals. As a corporate work created after 1977, copyright is for 95 years after publication, so the end of 2082 (1987+95). --Closeapple (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It needed a copyright notice (registration would be irrelevant). It has one though, so as a 1987 U.S. work it will be copyrighted until 2083. The IA terms are not really relevant, but we would need a license from the publisher (presumably the copyright owner) to upload any of that magazine. Well except advertisements without a standalone copyright notice would be OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 03:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Two things:
  1. I was under the impression that, for 1978–1989 publications, if the copyright holder forgot the copyright notice but caught it and registered within 5 years, it still got copyright protection just like 1989+ works. (See File:PD-US table.svg via Commons:Copyright rules by territory#United States and Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States at Cornell for the rule.)
  2. I knew there was something special about advertisements that I was forgetting, but I couldn't remember what. Where is the information about advertisements needing a separate copyright notice? I wonder if it would apply between 1978 and 1989 when registration of the work (and therefore a deposit copy showing what was covered) would no longer have been necessary. If Dominikmatus wants to use material from advertisements, that may be important. --Closeapple (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
1) Yes, registration within 5 years (among a couple of other steps) could serve to protect the copyright if there were copies distributed without notice from 1978-1989. 2) 17 USC 404(a). I suppose registration within 5 years could protect those as well from 1978-1989. It's a weird, specific exception which I think originally resulted from the ruling in a court case and was later put into statutory law. I think a newspaper owner tried to claim copyright over the advertisements (since there was no separate notice and they had copyrighted the collective work) and tried preventing the other party from using the ads in other newspapers, or something weird and abusive along those lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The advertisement rules are here: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Advertisements -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

FOP?

File:WWF Undisputed Championship.jpg Are these belts sculptures, jewelry, or utilitarian etc? Is there country that has FOP for non-permanent displays to take pictures of them in case they are considered 3D sculptures? They will probably never be displayed permanently.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Aren't they essentially to be treated the same as medals or trophies? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Should we all agree that award belts are treated like medals and trophies for copyright purposes of images and add that to this policy page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Jewelry, medals, and trophies are all considered "sculptural works". This is uncontroversial and well-supposed by case law. As for belts (buckles), even these were found to be copyrighted in Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc. Эlcobbola talk 16:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Should I add 'Awards, medals, and trophies' to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter and refer it to the section on 3D art then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Something like "Awards (medals and trophies)" might be appropriate, but the talk page there is really the place to ask. As an aside, that page is a disorganized mess; it might be a worthwhile project to reorganize the thing (i.e. level two header of "sculptural works," with level three headers of "Toys", "Models", "Jewelry", etc.) instead of just tacking on another section. Эlcobbola talk 17:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that it would be better to move COM:CB#Utility objects into a policy page of its own, and move some sections of COM:CB to that policy page. The law differs a lot between different countries. A Stormtrooper helmet is an artwork in the United States but ineligible for copyright in the United Kingdom because it is purely utilitarian, and many European countries don't differ between utilitarian and non-utilitarian objects at all. For each country, we would need need to know whether utilitarian objects are protected by copyright or not (COM:TOO contains some hints for a few countries), whether utilitarian objects are covered by FOP (the Danish law seems to include some things such as "ships" in the definition of a "building") and how a utilitarian object is defined (the UK definition is obviously different to the US one given the Stormtrooper ruling). For example, utilitarian objects such as nail clippers are protected by copyright in France. Are we allowed to upload photos of French cars to Commons? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That talk page doesn't seem to get much use nor answer many questions. I just added an awards/trophies section and there are three more sections I mentioned on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
@Stefan4: Yes, there really ought to be an actual COM:Useful Articles page (not just a section on COM:DW) just as there are COM:derivative works and COM:Freedom of Panorama pages. It's a major concept in copyright law, and one with significant complexities and jurisdictional differences. It seemed a large gap when I was writing User:Elcobbola/Models. Эlcobbola talk 17:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, the COM:UA shortcut goes to a section which is very US-centric, even mentioning sections in the US copyright law, but which ignores the laws of all other countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone should pop over to WMF legal on meta and have them fix all these pages. Most are their policies anyways. I don't think we need consensus to clarify the WMF stand on these issues and then we would have an official page or 12 instead of 42 un-official ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanmarino6.jpg

Hello!

A few days ago i was browsing the San Marino article on Wikipedia and i noticed that a photo i made was being used without my knowledge. Originally the unknown uploader (User:Another n00b) uploaded it as a replacement of Sanmarino5.jpg, but after i contacted the author of the original Sanmarino5.jpg, he restored it and my picture was moved to Sanmarino6.jpg.

As the author of the photo i really don't mind if it's being used on Wikipedia or any affiliated sites, as long as it's not claimed as the work of somebody else. I just registered here today to post this, so i don't know how things work here yet. I managed to change the image summary, but could anybody help me make that red copyright square go away? Thanks.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sanmarino6.jpg

Jernej Gosar

P.S. I was the person who originally uploaded the image to the http://forums.samsungi8910omnia.com link that is mentioned on the image's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jernej Gosar (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Hi Jernej, welcome to Commons, and sorry to hear about the circumstances that led you here. We try very hard to catch copyright violations early, but there is a limited number of regularly active volunteers and thousands of uploads every day. Of course we want all our content to be correctly attributed to its rightful authors. Because Commons is a media repository based on the same philosophy as Wikipedia, we also want all the media files here to be usable by anyone for any purpose, just like the encyclopædia texts at Wikipedia can be used by anyone for any purpose. On Wikipedia, everyone who contributes has to agree to a license that makes this legally possible. Similarly, on Commons, we only host copyrighted content if the copyright holder agrees to publish the content under terms that allow anyone to use the content (in modified or unmodified form) for any purpose (including commercial purposes). A commonly used copyright license that makes this possible (and requires attribution) is the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license. Would you be willing to permanently release File:Sanmarino6.jpg under this license? Would you extend this permission to the full 3264×2448 resolution version as well? Also, since there are now effectively two newly registered users claiming this previously published photo, it would be good if you could confirm on your forum profile that you are Jernej Gosar here on Commons. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 11:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure, that license looks ok, and i'd like to extend it to the full resolution as well. I updated the About me/Biography section of the forum profile, so you can see i'm really the same person. -Jernej — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jernej Gosar (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 March 2013‎ (UTC)
Thank you very much! I've updated the file description with the licensing information and removed the problem tag. I also uploaded the full resolution version. Once again: welcome. —LX (talk, contribs) 02:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Attributing work

Hi, new to this, im writing a thesis on echinoderms, specifically sea urchins and im trying to write a section on echinoderms. Im after a photo that is present on wikicommons, im confident that it is an open source file having "attribution and share alike" requirements. The authors name presents as Fastily...... how would i reference this person........ e.g. This image was aquired with thanks to Fastily, Wikimedia Commons.  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulac17 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 March 2013‎ (UTC)

User talk:Fastily is their talk page. You could leave a message there with a link to the image and ask how they would prefer attribution.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/03&oldid=187196425"