Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/12

File:Apple WWDC Banner Art.jpg

Is this a COM:DW ? LGA _talk^edits 11:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone ? LGA _talk^edits 20:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible undeletion, or not ?

Hi,

I'm looking at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1923 paintings, and a bit confused. Ok, I understand that, despite being in the public domain in their country of origin, these works may be still copyrighted in the USA until 2019, "thanks" to URAA. I got that far. Now, I see {{PD-US-no notice}}, which states "This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice". Why does this not apply ?

Regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That template requires publication in the United States. It also requires that the US publication took place no later than 30 days after the first publication outside the United States, of which we have no evidence. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Then, what about {{PD-US-unpublished}} ? Is it also "published in the US", or not ? Also, just for my information, is there a known case of a complaint filed in the US for a work by an artist deceased for over 70 years and whose work is DP in its country of origin ? I saw wmf:DMCA Oldenburg for an example of a work DP somewhere, but copyrighted in the US, but then the artist was (is) alive. I'd be interested of course even in a complaint made to someone else than the WMF - just to know if it ever happened. Esprit Fugace (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The template {{PD-US-unpublished}} requires that the paintings haven't been published anywhere in the world before 2003. All of the paintings have presumably been published somewhere. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour, Le principe même de l'URAA est d'accorder aux oeuvres visées par l'URAA la même protection de copyright que celle qui est accordée aux oeuvres assorties d'une notice de copyright valide. On ne peut donc pas invoquer le fait qu'elles n'avaient pas de notice, car cela reviendrait à faire comme si l'URAA n'existait pas. Donc, puisque les oeuvres visées par l'URAA doivent être traitées de la même manière que des oeuvres assorties d'une notice valide, les bandeaux no notice de Commons sont incompatibles avec les oeuvres visées par l'URAA. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ancient document in a probably-PD book

So I'm pretty sure this is PD, I just want to know what combination of tags I should use.

I have a book published in England in 1920 by a corporate publisher for a historical society. Its frontispiece is a tipped-in page depicting a chirograph recording a final concord dating to 9 June 1303. Seeing as all three parts of the fine are available, it's possible that it was never enrolled (kind of a guess on my part). The book itself does not appear to state just who took the scan-like photograph of the ancient document. So here are the issues I see:

Obviously, this is a candidate for {{PD-scan|PD-old-100}} (or perhaps {{PD-scan|PD-anon-auto-1996|1303}}) since the author of the chirograph certainly did not live beyond the 14th century (though I don't know if there's a PD-exempt-like thing for the UK). But since the UK and countries that have a sweat-of-the-brow doctrine, I'm curious as to how to tag for the copyright in the book. Does this count as an anonymous work because the historical society is a corporate author? Or do I attribute the frontispiece to the editor along with the rest of the book (one C. W. Foster, who according to the page on the Lincoln Record Society died in 1935)? The editor's preface gives thanks to several individuals (including one Prof. F. M. Stenton who provided "copies of several twelfth century documents"; he seems to have died in 1967), but doesn't name who, or under whose direction, the photo in the frontispiece was produced. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I went and uploaded it just under the PD-scan rationale here: File:Final concord on land in Lincoln 31 Edw. I.jpg. I would still appreciate it if someone had an answer about the PD status for the book with respect to the sweat-of-the-brow doctrine in the UK. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a 2D document, no problem with the PD rationale. Yann (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You can see how I handled some similar issues (not the corporate authorship, though) at Image:Harleian Ms2169 St Mihell arms tricked original.gif... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. One more question: A translation of the Latin text is published in the same book, and I'd like to include it in the file description page for convenience. Since this is a 1920 publication edited by someone who died in 1935, do I need a separate license tag? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

IMFDB

Due to recent influx of problematic images originating from this website, I propose adding it to "bad sources" list
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bad_sources

The sile clearly has overall Wiki-inspired design and mechanics that leads many to believe it conforms to the same GFDL or CC-BY-SA licensing, that is NOT the case in reality. The problem is twofold:
1) The photos taken by site's admin MPM2008 are certainly not free license, and this author is known to come great length to protect his copyrights. Also should be noted that not all of his photos carry watermark and(or) any copyright notice. These are certainly not suitable for Commons.
2) On the other hand, the site's admins are very lax concerning the other people's copyrights- while some files ARE really PD or freely licensed, most (expluding MPM2008's works) are grabbed from random sources (like press images or similar) at most times WITHOUT any attribution. It is also a commons practice there to overwrite PD or freely licensed files with NON-free files of larger resolution while leaving the former file's attribtuon notice intact, making to believe the new file is also free, that is again not the case...
Either way these files seem not suitable for uploading here --RussianTrooper (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Publication - public domain

Is dissemination of a product specification by the manufacturing company classed as publication of this descriptive material thus placing it in the public domain ? Can we make a copy of a page from a spec and include it in Commons without infringing copyright ? Tfitzp (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Such a dissemination is a publication, but from the information that you have given it is unclear why it should be in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The intention is to upload an item consisting of a typed Specification sheet copied from a product manual dated 1960 [and incidentally the spec was originally written by myself]. The manual was the property of a company dissolved in 1996 with no successors.

Where does copyright lie - can it be considered to have lapsed ? How can suitable information be supplied for Commons Permissions ? Tfitzp (talk) 14:05, 01 December 2013 (UTC)

If it meets the conditions of {{PD-US-not renewed}}} or {{PD-US-pre1978}}, it can probably be uploaded. Otherwise, it may fall into the "Orphan works zone. When you wrote it back in 1960, presumably you did so as part of a "work-for-hire" arrangement... AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Should have posted the fact the 1960 Specification was originated in the UK. Tfitzp (talk) 10:05, 03 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, assume that it can't be uploaded until 70 years after your death. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is same annoying situation which has led to Rider-Waite tarot deck copyright expiring in 2022 instead of 2013... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Renewal?

Hello,

Could someone check whether this work was renewed or not please? File:Aryabhatiya of Aryabhata, English translation.djvu. Just to be sure before working further on it. I've searched On Stanfard DB, and there are several copies from the Million Book Project available on IA and elsewhere: [1], [2], [3]. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I've searched the Gutenberg copy (probably a little more reliable then the Stanford one, since the Stanford one was created from it) and found no evidence that it is copyright. I left a note to that effect on the talk page, so people in the future should know what has been checked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Infringement

A user (Guest62476) just came on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help and asked if they could upload a file of their boss. They were told no, unless they were given permission by the photographer. Guest624766 acknowledged. I checked the page they asked about, and they uploaded the file... it can be seen here. It was uploaded by Aliceyliang, who I think is Guest62476.

Thanks! Newyorkadam (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Copyright free if attribution given

• eBay
• back

The back says it's copyright free if ABC is credited. Can we use this and if so, how should it be licensed? Thanks, We hope (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Attribution|nolink=ABC}} ? -- Asclepias (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks-will do. Thought that might be the case (attribution) but wanted to check. We hope (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A possible copyright infringement

Hi. I am not entirely familiar with how possible copyright infringements are dealt with here on Commons so I am asking it here. The file in question is this and I am doubting if that file really is compatible with cc-by-sa-3.0 licence. --MiPe (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Most probably not. Deleting it. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Skvader.jpg

This image has a somewhat confusing license; I don't think it should be deleted immediately, but it definitely needs a clarification about its status.--Carnby (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There's an assertion that the permission of the Ancient Monument Association of Medelpad (Fornminnesföreningen i Medelpad), presumably the copyright holder, was sought, and granted by one Mr. L. Häggström on 10 February 2004. I suspect no evidence of this permission was sent to OTRS. However, as the file has been around for almost ten years, I believe our policy is to give the uploader the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is for a Swedish speaker to contact the Association again and request for an e-mail confirmation which can then be sent to OTRS. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you please help me to put a proper {{Information}} template on the file description?--Carnby (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How to upload a derivative work of two images on Commons

I would like to upload an artistic rendition based on two images found on Commons (this and this). Since derivativeFX is down, how can I upload it with the right license? Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This would not be allowed on Commons (whether derivativeFX is used or not), because the second image relies on freedom of parorama, and German law does not allow you to make derivative works of such images. See the "Prohibition of alteration" paragraph in Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Germany for details. --Avenue (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This one (by Rodin) can be used to make a derivative work, right?--Carnby (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. --Avenue (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!--Carnby (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Author of image" is not the author

A common issue with images with supposed "authors" is when that person appears in the image and is clearly not the actual author of the work. I seldom run across this but in researching an article at Wikipedia I ran across this image when checking to verify its license and make sure it wasn't flickr washed. The image states the author as Tim Bartel. Unfortunately, that is Mr. Bartel in the photo and it was taken by an un-credited author. This is a copyright violation.

The image is part of several taken one after the other by an unknown and un-credited person [4] and has no OTRS permissions.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Images from 'Individuals involved in civil disturbances' Vol 1 and Vol 2 produced by the Alabama Department of Public Safety in the 1960s

This publication, Individuals involved in civil disturbances Vol 1 and Vol 2 (marked CONFIDENTIAL) is essentially a bound set of id 'flash cards', mainly of Civil Rights Activists' collected in the 1960'. A short description of the subject, including purported organizational affiliation, and arrests is attached to the images. Many of the images seem to be taken of individuals under duress or in confrontation. These images are the work product of a police agency of the State of Alabama, made and collected with public funds. These two volumes contain a trove of famous and not so famous Civil Rights activists. I believe there is a rational that puts these images in the public domain. I am including a URL for the 'flash cards' that include Hosea Williams, a close associate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in SCLC, and who was later an activist in Georgia who served in the Georgia State Assembly and other political offices.
http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/compoundobject/collection/photo/id/1772/rec/3

The thumbnails of the images are along the right border of the webpage and can be scrolled up and down. The images are in alphabetic order sorted by 'last name' 'first name'.

The Wikimedia Commons is very weak in images of the American Civil Rights Movement in the 50's,'60s and '70. Especially the collection of images of leaders is narrow; perhaps only ten or so. I'd like to use the image of Hosea Williams from the to help build his Wikipedia biography; the only image I've got now in the article is one of his campaign buttons. - Neonorange (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't know much about the origin of these pictures. They aren't the product of the State of Alabama; Lucille Komisar is holding a sign that says Maryland for her mug shot. The use of public funds is irrelevant; with the exception of the US Federal Government, virtually everything done with public funds is copyrighted just like if it were done with private funds. If they were published, it seems likely that they weren't properly copyrighted according to the rules at the time, but I don't think this is a publication, as it was marked confidential and only distributed to people inside the organization. It's entirely possible some or all of these pictures are public domain, but this doesn't prove it at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. As for the 'Maryland' mug shot; such images are 'public record' in the US at present. That classification should extended back in time. Marking a document 'Confidential' has no standing at the state level. The document was an instrument of repression - not all of the images indicate any arrest at all. - Neonorange (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

But saying that something is a "public record" says absolutely nothing about its copyright status; as I said, the works of governmental organizations that aren't part of the US federal government are not public domain in the US, except in the case of a couple states with explicit rules on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily within one organization; US law enforcement is not monolithic. Sheriff's offices and city police departments are not under direct control of state authorities. What is known about distribution of these volumes? Did that confidentiality notice have any legal force or was it advisory only? Were there comparable publications in other states? Dankarl (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the questions. Most likely the volumes would NOT have been limited to official law enforcement organizations; "White Citizens' Councils", for example (see the WP article White Citizens' Council). - Neonorange (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is likely you could develop a strong argument these were PD-no notice, but it will need more than your assertions. Was there a law on the books in Alabama that made that confidentiality notice binding? Can you show that any copies were distributed unofficially? How many were printed? Were they sent to other states? The out-of-state images may have been published when the originating departments sent them out. In the meantime, you could start putting the entries into WP articles under fair use. The accompanying texts are imo of even more historical interest than the images themselves but may run into BLP concerns. Good luck. Dankarl (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions; they give me some idea of paths to follow. In some cases the notes juxtaposed with the images on the 'flash cards' make a very strong narrative. I think I will initially avoid the BLP concern by trying a biography of a subject no longer living. - Neonorange (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of euro coins

I was surfing the Commons database and I noticed that there are still a lot of images about euro coins (many others have been deleted, though). Some of them are maked with {{Money-EU}} (like this or this) and others with {{Währung}} (like this, probably a template imported from German-language Wikipedia). Entire categories are still available on Commons such as this (I'm not sure they should be deleted since they're not legal tender). and this. I suppose euro banknotes can be uploaded to Commons (there's an exception with this template) while euro coins are not allowed: am I right?--Carnby (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In short, yes, you're right. It doesn't have to do with legal tender but with A) the copyright of the designs and B) the copyright of the illustrations (photographs/drawings). The coins are not allowed (with rare exceptions such as when a coin is incidental in a file (de minimis) or perhaps free photographs of Finnish coins about which there may be diverging opinions). The situation of the banknotes is disputed. The status of the template Money-EU is precarious. It has been deleted a few times. You can read more about it in the deletion discussions Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2 and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Money-EU, the last two of which were unfortunately closed without any real rationale, so basically the matter is still pending. Another current discussion of the same issue was opened at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Second series 5 euro banknotes. N.B.: You can of course remove the template for banknotes when the image is not of a banknote. About your example with the coin Botanischer Garten, note that the image also has a bogus claim of a free license that does not exist at the source. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

New images of euro coins are uploaded all of the time, and these are then eventually taken to deletion requests where they are deleted. Unfortunately, there will always be some around before people notice them and are able to act. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Please delete a photo

A wikipedia user uploaded last year this photo ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kouneleika_A.jpg ) as his own. This photo was uploaded by me 5+ years ago in another site (www.panoramio.com) from where it was downloaded and stolen. Wikipedia admins were notified last year, but nevertheless the photo wasn't deleted at last. I own the copyright of this photo and I request to be deleted. If needed, I can prove my claim. --Enpatrais (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about this which is uploaded only 13 hours ago? JKadavoor Jee 11:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this photo you mentioned is the original one and uploaded by me (again in this site) some hours ago to prove my claim.--Enpatrais (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problem with deleting it. It's not in use anymore, and there are other better images of the same building (el:Κουνελαίικα Αχαΐας). -mattbuck (Talk) 11:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I added the "speedydelete" template--Enpatrais (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Enpatrais, could you please provide us the link to your original (5+ years ago) upload to Panoramio. --Túrelio (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't do that. I think only Panoramio/Google can, if this picture is deleted (maybe it is hidden or archived). I can only send you in your email account a print screen of the folder in my computer with the series of that day's fotos so you can see as a thumbnail the original foto with its original name and a print screen of the properties window of that photo, if you like. --Enpatrais (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

O.k. From your initial statement, I couldn't know that you had it already deleted from Panoramio. No need for further evidence, as the image on Commons has now been deleted.

Just as an advise, independent of Commons: From the point of forensics, it wasn't a good decision to remove the first publication (Panoramio) of your image, as now you don't have any open evidence to prove your authorship claim. For courts, evidence of first/prior publication is very important if they have to decide who is the true author. --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, i'm user and sysop in greek wikipedia. Because you mentioned some doubts about the copyrights, i can confirm about the reliability of Enpatrais's claims.--Diu (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FOP in Mozambique for colonial architecture

In a nutshell, I sustain that Mozambique copyright law is being misinterpreted here in Commons, and works of architecture published in what is now Mozambique prior to 1975 were published in Portugal, and should not be the object of no-FOP dispositions on Mozambique copyright law, since that law defines its scope to "works published in Mozambique" and "works of architecture erected in Mozambique". This issue is under discussion here, with link for the aforementioned law, as well as many practical situations in deletion requests. Please participate on that discussion, as this has a significant impact on what Mozambique files we can and can't keep here.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Security camera video

Can this video be uploaded to Commons as {{PD-ineligible}}? I've read w:en:Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices but it doesn't give a clear yes/no answer on what Commons policy on such videos is. Also the video seems to be composed of more than one security camera recordings. Thanks, YurB (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

w:en:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices is for Anglo-American-based copyright law systems. Based on the videos description, I would think this is rather a question for Russian or Ukrainian copyright (though Commons may be housed in US, the Commons:Licensing-policy also requires the media to be free in the source country), which I know very little of (but I have just skimmed w:en:Copyright law of the Russian Federation and it doesn't seem to operate with the concept of TOO). --heb [T C E] 12:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a EU directive where it says that all films, regardless of originality, are protected for 50 years from publication (or 50 years from creation if not published for 50 year). This right should not be mixed up with standard copyright, which expires 70 years after the death of some people, but requires originality. The former right belongs to the producer, whereas each EU country decides who the right holder(s) are to the second right. It is unambiguous that the shorter right applies to CCTV films, but it is unclear when the longer right would apply, if ever. It is unclear whether you can take single screenshots from a CCTV film without violating the film right.

In some European countries, there is furthermore a provision which provides protection for any photographic image, although photographic images below the threshold of originality get shorter terms of protection. The Swedish preparatory works from 1956 explicitly list screenshots from films as photographs, so those screenshots which are images would appear to be protected in at least Sweden. This right belongs to the photographer, and the photographer is the person who operates the camera. It may be difficult to find out exactly who the photographer is, but when you set up a surveillance camera, every action which leads to the creation of photographic images is made by a human, so someone is the photographer.

There are also EU rules for sound recordings which make sound recordings protected for 70 years from publication (or 70 years from creation if not published for 70 years); this would affect surveillance cameras which create a soundtrack. No originality is required, and I don't know how to identify the rightsholder of the soundtrack from a surveillance camera. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. The video is from Ukraine. I checked the copyright law of Ukraine. It uses the term "audiovisual work" which is defined as "work <...> in form of series of frames that represent moving pictures <...>". But I can't find a description of what can be considered a "work" and what can't. It also has the neighboring right section ("суміжні права") which discusses the 50-year terms for recordings, performances etc. In includes a term called "videograph" which is something like a captured work on video but no the work itself. So it seems that this file can be protected by copyright in Ukraine if it meets the definition of a "work" (which I can't find) or "videograph" ("відеограма"). So it looks like it's safer not not treat it as {{PD-ineligible}}. --YurB (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture of a photo of Güllich

Hello,
Sorry if i do some mistake in english, as my native language is french.
I've a doubt on this picture : File:Bild auf dem Gedenkstein fuer Guellich.jpg. It seems to have been taken in Germany but i'm not sure if the rule of freedom of panorama can apply here because the only thing in the picture is the photo. This is different from this second picture : File:Gedenkstein_fuer_Guellich_1.jpg where i've less doubt considering that the view is larger. (NB: in my opinion this 2 pix are public dedicated, publicly accessible and permanent)
Should i launch a deletion request??
Thanks in advance for any anwser. --Absinthologue (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

German FOP includes art COM:FOP#Germany; no dr needed. Dankarl (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Derivative works question

I uploaded two freely licensed images: [5], [6]; they were deleted as copyright violations of the US Republican (RNC) logo, [7]. Both these uploaded images clearly were inspired by the RNC logo, but are different images (ie, not a hand trace or something). What threshold needs to be met before a work inspired by a copyrighted image is no longer a copyright violation? VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that at least the 3D image is an independent work, not a derivative. Ruslik (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as far as the RNC having any copyright on this: Substantially similar work exists on a watch face insert in 1980: see il_fullxfull.408422110_rw1y.jpg via Etsy #118447075: Reagan Time vintage quartz wrist watch. Works first published in the U.S., when between 1978 and March 1989, require either a copyright notice (which might be on the back of the watch, but unlikely because it seems to just be a graphic insert in a more general watch) or copyright registration (possibly, but also unlikely). And if it exists on this watch, it probably exists on other items. If any copy authorized by the artist was distributed before 1989 with neither registration nor copyright notice, this elephant would definitely be in the public domain as {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Furthermore, if you can find any work at all that was displayed in public before 1978, it would make it public domain unless the work had both copyright notice and registration: {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Closeapple (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Chang'e 1 image, NASA-PD?

I have noticed some suspicious elements of the image of Chang'e 1 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chang_e_1.jpg File:Chang e 1.jpg), which is currently listed under a NASA-PD template. The image does appear on a NASA webpage, which I have linked to on its description page, since the original page linked no longer includes the image. If this image is really a sole work by NASA, I have to say that it's one of the strangest graphics that NASA has produced. Note the unusual coloration scheme and image quality, which are not consistent with NASA graphics. The subject of the image is of a Chinese spacecraft, which NASA may not have produced their own images for. The image is hosted on a NASA webpage, but with no attribution ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=2007-051A ). This NASA webpage also hosts images of other foreign spacecraft which are also not sourced, and which also do not resemble NASA works (e.g., http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1988-058A ). TinEye has not been able to produce a definitive older version of the Chang'e 1 image. In my opinion, it is very likely that this image is not NASA-PD but I haven't been able to locate what could definitely be called the original source. Geogene (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a NASA contact, Dr. David R Williams, on the page you linked. Suggest you ask him. Dankarl (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I emailed Dr. Williams and curator Ed Bell last week. Geogene (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also in this PDF, which is the paper quoted on the NASA page and dated 2005 - http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/dec2005/ilc-25.pdf --ghouston (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It is there, but without attribution and without a figure number, which implies that it was added to the PDF and not published in the original paper. I suspect NASA might have pulled it out of that PDF since they do list the source as a reference. I did find an image of similar artistic work on a blog, this one of Chang'e 3, with very similar coloration but with considerably evolved designed sophistication here (image 2). No attribution there either. I think I'll keep a lookout for it on CNSA pages. http://www.dragoninspace.com/planetary/change3.aspx Geogene (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

1864 painting by artist †1912

Can this painting be added to Commons? They claim "Image in copyright", but the artist died in 1912, over 95 years ago, so I suspect their claim of copyright may be bogus? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is OK for Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Their claim "Image in copyright" is true - in the UK. However, Commons disregards UK law when it comes to slavish reproductions of paintings. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

In need of help

Hey, sorry for my quasi imbecility , I am wondering if http://www.museoblaisten.com/v2008/hugePaintingFondo.asp?numID=4169 is able to be uploaded.... thank you, whomever, for your time

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudanotak (talk • contribs) 19:07, 11 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Please don't apologize for asking before uploading something. Copyright can be complicated and this is a good example. Also, my apologies for the long delay in responding -- we seem to have overlooked your query.

At first blush, this is a work by Arturo García Bustos, who is still living, so it is under copyright. However, he is Mexican and Mexico has very broad Freedom of Panorama. If this image was made in a public place in Mexico (as defined at the link), it could be uploaded. If the image was made in another country, then the answer depends on where it is. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

10 Album Arts Under Copyright

Hello, I have uploaded 10 album arts, all by The Jokerr, and they are all marked as possible copyright infringements. To avoid being blocked from editing, how would I get rid of this threat? I was given permission from The Jokerr to upload the cover arts to be used in his Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythman5 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your upload. We are generally rather suspicious about professional artwork such as album covers as there are many people who download such pieces of artwork from the Internet and then upload them here, claiming that they own the copyright in them when it is clear that they do not. To prove that you have permission to upload these files, you will need to get The Jokerr himself or an authorized representative to send you an e-mail confirming that The Jokerr is the owner of the copyrights in the images and agrees to license them under a suitable licence such as {{Cc-zero}}, {{Cc-by-3.0}} or {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} (click on the links for more information about them). Then you need to forward this e-mail to permissions-commonswikimedia.org for verification. For more information on this procedure, see "Commons:OTRS". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

François de Ripert-Monclar

Hello. Does anybody know if this picture, even here, can be added to this page? If that's fine, can you please add it to the infobox? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead! Please add all the information provided at the source in the image description. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it. Can you please do it for me? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I will explain, so you can contribute yourself. Copy the image on your computer, then go to Special:Upload, fill up the information copying from the source. You will need to add the license ({{PD-anon-1923}}) manually after the upload as this is a special case. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'd rather you did it if you don't mind?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Here it is: File:Le marquis François de Ripert-Monclar dans un salon.jpg. Yann (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Works of art by William H. Johnson and Gene Davis

Hello,

I found this file (File:Fright, by William H. Johnson.jpg) on the Flickr stream of the Smithsonian Institution, tagged with a free license. We have several works by him, but his category shows a warning. See Category:William H. Johnson. So what's the copyright situation? Yann (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

We seem to assume that the Smithsonian knows what it's doing. One possible rationale that would make sense for this would be PD-no notice if the 1967 donation to the Smithsonian constituted publication. Dankarl (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, fine. I remove the warning then, and add "PD-no notice" as the license. Yann (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is a bigger problem, because there are some even more recent works, by Gene Davis, e.g. [8], which can't be "PD-no notice". The date given is 1981 here, so it can only be {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Yann (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• File:GeneDavisStreet.jpg: copyright of the art work in honor of Gene Davis made in 2007?
• File:Banjo, by Gene Davis.jpg: {{PD-US-1978-89}}?
• File:Franklin's Footpath, by Gene Davis.jpg: {{PD-US-no notice}}?

Additional, it might be argued that these works of art are not published, isn't? Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US says that "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Yann (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

About File:GeneDavisStreet.jpg: According to the description, it was a work created in 2007 by Mokha Laget. So, not 1978-1989. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misreading the description. I changed my question. Yann (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:GeneDavisStreet.jpg is a bunch of straight lines. The only thing which even might be copyrightable is the selection and arrangement of the colors... very borderline, and not entirely sure a photo like that would necessarily count as a derivative work. Very fringy to delete that one. Similar with File:Franklin's Footpath, by Gene Davis.jpg (and that may have been PD-no_notice even if it was copyrightable). The copyrights on the photos themselves seem OK. As for File:Fright, by William H. Johnson.jpg and File:Banjo, by Gene Davis.jpg, it's probably not clear which of the four reasons is the real reason. They *might* have been PD-US-no_notice, or it's also possible copyright was held and donated to the Smithsonian, giving them enough rights to release the images under a license. Could be a form of PD-author (not really an author, but a copyright owner). I don't think I'd delete them given the source, but I'm also not sure I'd guess any further than the Flickr-based license we have (and be sure, reasons 3 and 4 on that tag are real license reasons by themselves). The part of "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication" has been law since 1978; before that, it was murkier and some cases more relied on if during the public display there was an effort to prevent people making copies (photos etc.). We generally consider public statues from before that date to be published, but that is not necessarily the case since 1978. Many paintings were published, but it can be hard to tell. It's possible that Fright was published in this publication... it's mentioned at least, but it's snippet view so I don't know if that was just a listing or if the images were published as well. Since that was a Smithsonian book published by the GPO, it may well have not had a copyright notice. But I'd rather not guess as to the reason and let the Flickr commons tag stand on its own, unless we can uncover some harder evidence (like the book above, if we could see it and confirm no-notice). Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed explanation. More questions ;o)

"a bunch of straight lines"? well most (all?) works by Gene Davis are a bunch of straight lines. Are they all in the PD because they are too simple to get a copyright? Yann (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It could differ by country, of course, but a series of parallel straight black lines would not be copyrightable I wouldn't think. The selection and arrangement of the colors might be. Most copyrights are in the delineation -- that is usually the creative part of a drawing, painting, or sculpture -- but if all of his works were like that, it would have to be different with him. The fact something has a powerful visual effect does not necessarily make something copyrightable. For one example, there is Christo and Jeanne-Claude's cloth-wrapped Reichstag -- I think Germany determined it was copyrightable there, but the U.S. Copyright Office denied a registration in the United States -- the cloth followed the form of the building, and there is nothing inherently copyrightable about the cloth itself. The only possible thing I could see there is the selection and specific arrangement of the colors... in other words, someone else could take the same concept just with different colors and it would not be a copyright violation. But, taking the same selection and arrangement of colors and reproducing it in another context would be (if the selection and arrangement was considered copyrightable). Whether a photograph is a derivative work then becomes a much messier question -- is the photograph focusing on the non-copyrightable visual effect with the selection and arrangement of the colors being incidental (i.e. the photograph would have been taken no matter which color arrangement was there), or is the photograph focusing on the selection and arrangement of the colors? In the U.S. at least it's not a "normal" copyright (if it exists), and therefore the photograph being a derivative work is also not a very straightforward question. Additionally, any works like that before 1978 would have needed a visible copyright notice. The Copyright Office also historically was very reluctant to give a copyright purely on color, so not sure they would have given a registration to something like those street paintings in those days. Something like File:Banjo, by Gene Davis.jpg on the other hand, would be copyrightable -- that is much more than straight lines; the color shifts are a form of delineation and that one is very complex. (In fact, looking it up, I do see a registration -- VA0000095584 dated 1982 -- for a colored print of that. Also registrations for prints of "Ferris wheel" and "Adam's rib" in 1981. Don't see any others, though that is only for copyright records 1978 and later.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

General Electric logo

• 

Is this image copyrightable? --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say not. Isn't this additionally an old logo, presumably meeting {{PD-US-no notice}}? The more interesting question is whether the SVG file is copyrighted as computer software per w:Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. In that case, the person who made the SVG file needs to provide a copyright tag. Currently, we only have a link to a deleted file on English Wikipedia. No idea if the SVG author's name is given there. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that it is not copyrightable. The General Electric logo has remained substantially the same since 1899: thus, in a general sense, it is {{PD-US-1923}}. See image and information at File:Early General Electric logo 1899.png. I don't know enough about Abobe v. Southern to comment on how this particular SVG rendering is affected. For what it's worth, the sign in File:GeneralElectricSign.jpg is in the U.S. and almost certainly pre-1978, has no copyright notice visible, and being a neon sign, is effectively vector art also — though, to be fair, it is obviously a different interpretation, since it duplicates only the central paths, not the borders of the shapes. --Closeapple (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn't any information at COM:TOO about the threshold of originality for SVGs, so all we can do is to guess. Maybe we should require a source and licence from the SVG creator for all SVGs. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A U.S. federal appellate case, 5 years after Adobe Systems v. Southern Software, seems to say that there is not copyrightable originality in vectorizations that are intended to directly reproduce an existing work. en:Threshold of originality#Reproductions of public domain works mentions this case, Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales, decided in 2008, in which Meshwerks' wire-frame model-based copy of a Toyota vehicle did not entitle Meshwerks to any copyright protection on the Meshwerks model. Meshwerks, a subcontractor of a subcontractor in a Toyota advertising campaign, took extensive measurements to insure correct reproduction. An excerpt from the ruling:

Meshwerks’ models owe their designs and origins to Toyota and deliberately do not include anything original of their own; accordingly, we hold that Meshwerks’ models are not protected by copyright...

This was despite the computer model being accepted for copyright registration; though Meshwerks only filed for copyright after non-registration caused the case to be dismissed the first time. --Closeapple (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issues regarding persons wearing jewelry

In November, I took two photos of Margaret O'Brien for which one or both photos may be a useful contribution to Wikimedia Commons. However, the subject in the photos is wearing items of jewelry, and the image casebook specifies that jewelry designs from March 1989 and later on are generally copyrighted. The question is whether there would be copyright issues in uploading the photos (one possible option might be to blur parts of the images, though that would lessen their quality) or whether any copyrighted jewelry designs are in the de minimis category and thus allowable.

For the next seven days, low-resolution cropped versions of the photos should be available for download at the following addresses:

http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=g2256a87764d49bf7999428676531486bedbe38610

http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=g8c225cfcf5530dac99942867780e0618938c9f5fb

--Gazebo (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If the copyrighted jewellery is the focus of a photograph, I don't think we could have the photograph in the Commons. However, in this case, I think the jewellery worn by the subject of the photograph is clearly de minimis – you can hardly see the necklace at all. So if the photographs are otherwise in the public domain or available under a free licence, I think it should be fine to upload them to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a clear case of de minimis. The purpose of the images is to show what the person looks like, not what her jewellery looks like. However, a close-up of the jewellery, for the purpose of displaying the jewellery, would be a copyvio. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Spirostachys africana

I found some pictures from Spirostachys africana under a CC-License. Is it possible to use this pictures? --M. Krafft (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No - it' a NC license, not allowed here. Dankarl (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with license

Can someone spot check File:Napoleon III Illustration.jpg and tell me if the license I picked ({{PD-UK-unknown}}) is correct? The source is here, from the British Library's release of out-of-copyright images from their archive. Should it be just PD? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine to me. There's no indication from anywhere in the book who the author of the illustration is. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The book does not mention the name of the author of the illustration. If you searched and you could not find the information in other sources, I suppose the unknown template can do. However, if you write the name of an author in the "author" field of the description page, you can't use the unknown template. If the author is unknown, you can't specify his/her name. Ms. Chesney, as the author of the text of the book, is mentioned in another field, as part of the book reference. Also, please add the template PD-1923 about the status of the work in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed "CHESNEY, J." from the "author" field because there is no indication that the author of the book, Ms. Chesney (is the author a woman? How can you tell?), was also the illustrator. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

She refers to herself in the feminine gender in the preface of her book The Land of the Pyramids. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. There was no preface or introduction in A Ramble Round France, and naturally I didn't read the entire book. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you all! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with specifying info on works derived from other CC works

I cropped and desaturated File:Chomsky-head.jpg, and I uploaded the new version as File:Noam_Chomsky_WSF_-_2003_-_cropped_and_black_and_white.jpg. It got deleted right after I uploaded it because I didn't have time to edit the info to indicate the source. It has since been restored. I have a few questions on the best way to do this right in the future.

Is there a way in the upload wizard to properly indicate that a file has been modified from another file on Wikimedia commons or other CC source?

What variation in license can I use? The original file has a Brazilian CC license. Should I use Brazilian CC, or can I use the corresponding plain CC license? If the original license is CC 2.0, can I use CC 3.0 for the new version?

I see some modified images upload with links to the original, but still indicated as "own work" (and I've copied that style). Is that appropriate? Does it depend on the level of modification?

If person X creates a CC image, person Y modifies that image (also under CC), and person Z modifies it again (still under CC), what's the right way to credit the image last modified by Z?

Thanks. Trey314159 (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

From what one understands, if a work is licensed under a CC-BY license and a third party creates a derivative work, then the material from the original work remains under the exact same CC-BY license (i.e. CC-BY 3.0 Brazil) but the new material added by the third party can be licensed differently (for example, the third party can use a different CC-BY license or even one of the CC-BY-SA licenses.) Giving attribution for the new work would include providing attribution for the existing work as well. In the case of persons X, Y and Z mentioned previously, person Z would probably do best to mention that the image was created by X and licensed under CC and then modified by person Y with the listed modifications licensed under CC and then modified by Z. In other words, information about previous authors and modifications and any CC licenses that apply should be included when giving attribution, from what one understands. Creative Commons has said that attribution for a work can be fulfilled by providing a link to a page that carries the relevant info about a work's title/author/license etc; the page for the new Chomsky photo does have a link to the page for the existing work. On the page for the new Chomsky photo, it may be useful to clarify that the existing photo is licensed under CC-BY 3.0 Brazil. Creative Commons has a guide to attributing derivative works that also may be of interest.

--Gazebo (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Is there a way in the upload wizard to properly indicate that a file has been modified from another file on Wikimedia commons or other CC source?" - Did you select the option "This file is not my own work." and provide and chose an option under "Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work:"?

"What variation in license can I use? The original file has a Brazilian CC license. Should I use Brazilian CC, or can I use the corresponding plain CC license? If the original license is CC 2.0, can I use CC 3.0 for the new version?" - For a CC BY 2.0 license, you can choose a CC BY or CC BY-SA (2.0 or later versions; ported or unported) here in Commons (you can choose NC and ND too; but not acceptable here).

"If person X creates a CC image, person Y modifies that image (also under CC), and person Z modifies it again (still under CC), what's the right way to credit the image last modified by Z?" - We must specify all previous authors. CC 4.0 demands, we must mention what modifications so far made to the original work.

Mentioning "own work" is wrong and misleading. I see some people specifying original work- original authors name; adapted work - own work. It is also misleading. Correct is: adapted work - Original author's name; modified by me. (See; we only own the copyright of what modifications we made; not to the entire work.) CC 4.0 clearly demands to mention any minute modification evenif it is negligible and not qualified enough to claim copyright. Jee 06:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the links and info. Trey314159 (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Quoting copyrighted text.

This is about quoting from a copyrighted book in a file description: File:Holt's Hotel, Water Street, Manhattan.jpeg. I have quoted about 30 words from the Google preview of a book which describes the subject of an image file; I gave full credit. Is this allowed? Thanks for your help. Vzeebjtf (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that should be fine. The "no fair use" rule on Commons is about the uploaded media specifically, not the descriptions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Vzeebjtf (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Two issues

• File:Sir Edward Elgar 1979.jpg

If I am not mistaken, it indicates to me that the painting was made in 1982 by Victor Heyfron, and not the person that conveyed the copyright. One might have to request a release by the actual author.

• File:Stade ADelaune 1930er.JPG

It tells me there, that a photo was taken from a photo in somebodies living room with their permission. Imho, we would need confirmation that Claude Prosdocimi (born 1927 in Italy) was the actual author and then formally grants permission. One might have to ascertain the actual author and request a release.

If I am seen here to exceed the bounds of normal usership, I would gladly take advice on that. Collegial regards, OAlexander (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right. I've nominated the first one for deletion; for the second one, please contact the uploader at de:User talk:Wahrerwattwurm. Lupo 20:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not really within my scope. Both, uploader and crossloader are administrators - and should have a clue what they are doing. Those things are better dealt with by more suitable people. Here I can only express general advice, or refer hierarchically. Regards, OAlexander (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Energizer 523 battery design

Would the design on the outside of an Energizer 523 battery (see link below for photos) be subject to copyright? From what one understands, the battery itself would be an uncopyrighted utilitarian object, but a design on such an object can be copyrighted.

http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=gb055bbf769bd94a5999429765fa4d41159e373f98

--Gazebo (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Things printed on the battery are not utilitarian, see COM:PACKAGING. There's a logo, which seems to be below the threshold of originality of most countries, but as the source country of the battery is unknown, we don't know whether the battery is below the threshold of originality of the source country. It looks as if there is text on the batteries, but the text isn't readable on your photographs. If the text is readable, then the text may be a problem, but it is also possible that the text simply is a list of components, in which case the text may be below the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears that two versions of the Energizer logo have been uploaded to Commons on the claim that they are below the threshold of originality. At the same time, the images of Energizer batteries on Commons include things such as File:AAAA_energizer_retail-1.jpg which is almost certainly a copyvio under COM:PACKAGING. In the Energizer-523-preview-1.jpg photo, the visible text at the black end says "MADE IN U.S.A." and "NO. 523" but there is also text towards the right end that consists of precautionary statements about not recharging or incinerating the battery and also warranty info, so that text may be copyrightable. In the Energizer-523-preview-2.jpg photo, the text near the logo in the rectangular areas says "EVEREADY" and "ALKALINE". As such, the side with the logo may be less likely to have copyright issues. Another issue is the lined pattern that goes along the battery from the right end to the black area.

In any case, thanks for the previous feedback.

--Gazebo (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Any more thoughts? (It was probably a good thing to get the File:AAAA_energizer_retail-1.jpg image dealt with.)

--Gazebo (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Adidas Brazuca 2013-12-05 18-33.jpg

 Question I am thinking that the design on this which is way over any COM:TOO and is not part of what makes the ball a utilitarian makes the picture a COM:DW and a fair use rational would be needed to cover it meaning that it can't be hosed on commons and it needs to be moved to project that allow fair use. LGA _talk^edits 08:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

anyone ? LGA _talk^edits 12:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

anyone ? ? LGA _talk^edits 10:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about soccer, but I'd also guess that, even though the ball seams are utilitarian, the color design is artistic originality that is beyond the mere utility of being highly visible. Maybe we need to solicit an opinion from a wiki project that knows about soccer ball design, or at least soccer ball visibility. --Closeapple (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please correct the information you published

I took part in the 1965 bolivarian Games in Quito, Ecuador and was excited when I found there was infornation on medals winners. My name is Beverly Eloisa Oglivie (de James) at the time. I took part in the Track and Field Athletics representing Panama (Javelin, Discus Throw). I won a Silver Medal. The problem is that you have my NAME and COUNTRY wrong.... the winner of that event was Isolia Vergara of Colombia. I would like to have that corrected - but how can we do that? I have a participant certificate with the name written right and the medals to prove it. Please reply to: bezebe6@yahoo.com

This appears to be about the en-wiki article en: Athletics at the 1965 Bolivarian Games, where the results are entirely sourced to this page. There are often mistakes in that kind of thing, but it is an interesting question on how to get it corrected (in the absence of another source which has more correct info). It's more a question for en-wiki, not commons, but... scans/photos of the certificate would certainly do it, although I'm not sure we could host them here if there was copyrightable artwork on them. Maybe such images could be fair use on Wikipedia? How would en-wiki handle situations where direct participants have better information (particularly documents which could verify things)? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence can be submitted and discussed by contacting info-enwikimedia.org. This would have the benefit of the conversation not having to be public until what is sufficient to make corrections is agreed. It may take a while, emails often take more than a month in the backlog due to a shortage of volunteers to handle email. To be honest I do not think that submitting certificates should be needed, a bit of decent research for independent multiple reliable sources for the 1965 Games should sort this out. --Fæ (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In particular, one should research publications in Spanish. [9], pp. 19-21, in HTML at [10], seems to confirm the above: "1965 Beverly Oglivie, colonense, casada y con dos hijos obtuvo su segunda medalla de plata como lanzadora de disco en los VI Juegos Bolivarianos en Quito, Ecuador. Su primera medalla de plata fue durante los IX Juegos Centroamericanos y del Caribe en Kingston, Jamaica, en 1962 como graduanda en el Colegio José Guardia Vega de la ciudad de Colón." Married: that gives the "de James". Minor problem with that source: 1965 were the fifth games, not the sixth. But in general, I guess that's an independent confirmation. Lupo 18:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Having found a photo that clearly shows that the silver medalist came from Panama, I've now corrected the listing at the English Wikipeda. Lupo 00:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative. --Fæ (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what it's all about, isn't it? BTW, the 1962 silver medal at the Juegos Deportivos Centroamericanos y del Caribe is confirmed by [11], p. 157. (Javelin then, not discus throw.) Seems that name is exceptionally prone to misspellings: "Jamie de Oblivie" (Athletics Weekly), "Beerly Oglevie" (El Tiempo), and now "Beverly Ogilvie" (ODECABE) :-) Lupo 12:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: Has someone replied to that yahoo.com e-mail address to make sure that she has seen this, or has someone from a Wikimedia e-mail address already been in contact with her? --Closeapple (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Santa Claus Conquers The Martians (1964).ogv

This file has been proposed as Motd. Is the used license correct? I found another version on archive.org tagged as CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. --Pristurus (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone uploaded it to the Internet Archive under a CC BY-NC-ND; so? If someone who actually has the rights to a movie is going to release it under a free/semi-free license, it's going to be with fuss. This is a very expensive production being given away, and if it was worth the time to get the rights to give it away, someone is going to care enough about it write up a good description, name who worked on it and who owned it to give it away.

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is incredibly well-known as a public domain movie. I see no reason to question the license we have for it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Images of Večer: non-free content in the exif

Hi, what (if anything) should be done about images like this one and the rest in Category:Photographs from Večer that contain entire stories in the exif. This text is still copyrighted and will remain so for quite a long time (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia. It does not even qualify as fair use, much less as free. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

From Google Translate, it looks like a description of the picture, so it would qualify as fair use, isn't? Yann (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

[12] I don't think so, it's rather an accompanying story and it's replaceable in any case. Let's have also other people say their opinion. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the non-free text (it's actually irrelevant whether it is fair use or not) from File:Piranska ladjedelnica 1962 (4).jpg using an exif-removing software. If anyone knows to do it in an easier way, welcome.. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the EXIF data before it was deleted, but if it contained useful information like the date and time the photograph was taken, it would have been good if that had been retained. GeoSetter is a useful free EXIF editing program you can use for this purpose. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It contained the same imformation as this file: nothing particularly valuable, except for the story. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, great. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that the uploader (User:Sporti) is still uploading files with the non-free exif despite having been notified of this discussion. I've asked him to stop, hoping that he will understand this is not in the best interest of the project. It goes against the policy of Commons hosting only the free content and could potentially also have legal repercussions, because the newspaper is still published. On the other hand, it would be appreciated if he reuploaded the already contributed files without it. / Thank you for the advice regarding the exif editor. I've tried one, but it removed the entire exif despite the option chosen to selectively remove only the 'image title' parameter. Perhaps this one will be better. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright on judgement of Indian courts, tribunals or other judicial authority

According to the s:en:Indian Copyright Law section 52(1)(q)(iv), reproduction of judgements of Indian courts, tribunals or other judicial authority is not an infringement of copyright. However, according to section 17(d), government is the owner of the copyright to government work. This has effectively meant that government works come into the public domain 60 years after publication (as stated at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India).

However, I recently found a Supreme Court judgement (courtesy User:Varun Chatterji) which says something about copyright on judgements of the Supreme Court of India. Copying the judgement into a text editor, text between lines 2514-2528 reads:

Section 52(1) expressly provides that certain acts enumerated therein shall not constitute an infringement of copyright and sub-clause (iv) of clause (q) excludes the reproduction or publication of any judgment or order of a Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the Court, the Tribunal or other judicial authority from copyright. The judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court would be in the public domain and its reproduction or publication would not infringe the copyright. The reproduction or publication of the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court by any number of persons would not be infringement of a copyright of the first owner thereof, namely, the Government, unless it is prohibited.

Add to this the fact that law journals regularly create derivative works of Supreme Court judgements (as can be seen in this judgement) and sell the journals (i.e commercial use of derivative works).

Does this have any effect on the situation regarding uploading judgements to commons? And if it does, does it affect only Supreme Court judgements or other courts/tribunals too? I'm asking since I am not a lawyer and clarifications on this would be nice to have. Thanks and regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said on IRC, it's the same nearly everywhere in the world. Laws and judgements are in the pubic domain, even if the government documents are not. Yann (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand the Indian Copyright Act, reproducing and publishing acts and judgements does not violate copyright (per section 52(1) clause (q)(4)); but the Copyright Act does not say anything about modifications, derivative works, commercial usage etc. I understand that Indian laws and judgements would probably be acceptable on wikisource, but if modifications, derivative works and commercial use is not allowed; how can these be acceptable on commons?

s:en:Template:PD-INGov seems to say something similar to my understanding.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, there is a similar provision in French law about modifications of text law and judgements. It is not a copyright restriction, but a warning that the texts should not be misleading. I think that's a restriction we can accept. Yann (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an appropriate copyright tag (template) for this? (Please specify which template.) And should File:The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.pdf and File:Section 377 - Delhi High Court - WP(C) No.7455 2001.pdf be restored?

If there's an appropriate template and Indian laws are allowed to be uploaded on commons, I'd like to upload 9 pdfs of Indian copyright acts and rules from the Indian Gazette website. Thanks for the help.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Per IRC discussion with Yann, the current {{PD-India}} template doesn't accurately reflect the copyright restrictions on laws, judgements etc. but s:en:Template:PD-INGov probably does a better job. So either the text of that template needs to be incorporated into {{PD-India}} using a parameter, or that template needs to be imported; preferably the former. And someone with knowledge of copyright laws needs to document when the template/parameter would/should be used. It would be nice if someone could do this. Thanks--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there is no answer I created Template:PD-India-Gov. Go ahead now! Yann (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Photos in US OSHA Alert document

The OSHA Alert document "Loss of Start-Up Oxygen in CSE SR-100 Self-Contained Self-Rescuers" contains a photo of two SCSR (self-contained self rescuer) devices in the opened versus unopened states. From what one can tell, this photo would be out of copyright under {{PD-USGov-DOL}} since it appears to have come from the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration which is part of the US Dept of Labor. Does this seem correct? (From what one understands, US government Web sites can incorporate content for which third parties hold the copyright or for which third parties have assigned the copyright to the US government, but in the case of this OSHA document there do not seem to be any notices indicating that this applies.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no third-party credit, not do they look like manufacturer's publicity photos, so I would say ok. Dankarl (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with 2013 Southeast Asian Games

I want to upload some photos of 2013 Southeast Asian Games from official website. The official website [13] released photos at main page as Media - Press releases - Press photos but do not show copyright information. Can I upload these photos to commons. --PhyoWP *click 17:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. If there is no clear statement that the photographs are in the public domain or may be freely distributed, used for both commercial and non-commercial purposes, and modified, then according to our precautionary principle we have to assume that they are all copyrighted. Under the copyright law of Myanmar, "[t]he copyright in a photograph expires 50 years after the date of the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived".

You could try looking for free content on Flickr using its Advanced Search form, making sure that you tick all the Creative Commons boxes as the bottom of the form. I did a search using the keywords "2013 SEA games" (with the "All of these words" option) and found some photographs. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned by JackLee, some of the photos under http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=2013+SEA+games&l=commderiv&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1 may be usable. --Gazebo (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Tewpiq

Tewpiq has uploaded a large quantity of images under a CC-SA-3.0 license, stating that the files are the uploader's own work. However, are they really his own work? I find it somewhat doubtful. See the following examples:

• File:Anwar Yusuf Turani - Childhood Picture with the Red Book of Chairman Mao.jpg - unless the uploader is 90+ years old, I doubt that he is the author.
• File:Anwar Yusuf Turani with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA).jpg - appears to be scanned from a magazine - you can see the scanlines.
• File:Chinese Flag with holes symbolizing future independent states.jpg - a tiny image, 320 × 201 pixels. No evidence of authorship. Surely if it was his own work, it would have a much better resolution?
• File:East Turkistan and its Neighbors.jpg - image appears to be a derivative of a copyrighted image (google search).
• File:New Official Emblem of the East Turkistan Government in Exile.jpg - copyrighted logo?

What do you guys think? Note that I've yet to have a look at all of them, and there are many more of these images. -- 李博杰  —Talk contribs 11:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting these. Just tag them with no source/no permission/whatever/etc. or create a DR. And please add a message on his/her talk page saying that you brought the issue here. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've notified them, thanks for the reminder. -- 李博杰  —Talk contribs 01:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Font comparisons

See Category:Font comparisons. Are these generally PD-ineligible? For example I want to transfer this over, but I'm not sure that it'll be covered by PD-ineligible, or even in scope. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As far copyright is concerned, I think it is OK. And if it is used somewhere on one of the Wikimedia projects, it is in scope. Yann (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It might depend on the source country of the fonts and the comparisons. For example, see File:Aalborg Broncestøberi skrifttype A, B og D.png. A Danish court decided that three fonts were below the threshold of originality whereas two other fonts were above it. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Dogecoin logo.png

File:Dogecoin logo.png is currently uploaded with a free license, stating that the copyright holder allows it to be used for any purpose. However, this image is a derivative work of a copyrighted image, and does not show any significant changes to grant separate copyright to the image's author, under United States copyright law. The image is derived from an image of a Shiba dog created by Kabosu, and merely adds some colour filter changes, superimposing a "D" in front, and placing the derived image within a circle.

A related image, File:Dogecoinwallet.jpg, also contains the aforementioned image within it, and is uploaded under a free license. Does this usage qualify as Commons:De minimis? -- 李博杰  —Talk contribs 01:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Help understanding the copy right

Hi,

After much research, I am still very unclear of what and how to use the files located within Wikimedia Commons. I'm from the US, but according the license term on a few items it states:

This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.

BUT then it also states: Dialog-warning.svg You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years

Is this indicating this work is in the 'public domain in the US?' The category was not filed there. Is that notice that it maybe filed incorrectly?

The example file I am referring to is:

File:Moderne Villen in Meisteraquarellen Serie II Tafel 005 Darmstadt Villa Grüner Weg 99.JPG

My apologies-it would not link the file

Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasikins (talk • contribs)

This file has the Commons copyright tag {{PD-old}}, which is not supposed to be added anymore, because it is confusing and usually doesn't give enough information. In the USA, all works published before 1923 are public domain, regardless of origin. However, policy on Wikimedia Commons is that a work must be free in both the USA and in the country of origin. The author appears to be Oskar Grüner. The website called Invaluable labels him as "Oskar Grüner (1867-1921)" and AskArt claims "Lives/Active: Austria" but I don't know what their sources for that information is. For now, I assume that all of Category:Moderne Villen in Meisteraquarellen, Serie II is a work first published in Austria and around 1905. Austrian copyright lasts 70 years after the artist's death. So we need to know when the painter Oskar Grüner died, but I am having trouble finding reliable biographical information about Oskar Grüner. If Grüner actually died in 1921 and his works were first published in Austria, then it appears that all of his paintings that were published during his lifetime have been in the public domain in Austria since 1991 at the latest, and the proper license tag is {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1921}}, to signify that the work is public domain in both the U.S. (pre-1923 publication) and anyplace that copyrights have expired for people dead since 1921. --Closeapple (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I did some more research to ensure I was correct on what I understood, which you verified above. The clarification regarding this code was helpful and I understand it much better. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasikins (talk • contribs)

I changed the template to {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1921}}. Yann (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. All of Category:Moderne Villen in Meisteraquarellen, Serie II seems to be by Oskar Grüner. Who wants to go through and tag the rest of them? --Closeapple (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Using Wiki images as textures?

Can`t find any info on possible usage of Wikipedia / Commons images as textures. I.e. I`d prepare fragments / derivatives of Wiki photos (cropped building walls, etc.) and map them onto virtual 3D objects I model and then render (visualize) the resulting image, such as e.g. a whole street scene (the final derivative work). The most popular licenses such as share-alike require uploading the derivative work under the same lic. Does it mean the resulting rendered image in this case? And does the license touch the matter of the scene files, etc.? I have no background in legal questions, and I cannot judge what is the general tendency in the case of Commons images and if sb uses them as textures (not to mention that each license has its own specificity, of course - this is another question).

It does not matter how you create a derivative work, whether you turn the image blue, then sell it on postcards or use an area as texture. Just apply the "derivative works" part of the copyright to your derivative works. Yes, the resulting rendered image is the derivative work. What scene files? If you distribute them in any way, they, too, are just derivative works, and you apply that aspect of the license to them. If you use multiple images in a single resulting derivative work of yours, you must correctly apply the derivative works section of all of the different copyrights to your derivative work. The original parts of the work that you create can, of course, be licensed as you choose. --205.170.118.162 13:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of Commons images at Zazzle

There is a page called Zazzle selling items with quite a few of Commons images but without following the terms of attribution or sharing alike, present in most of our images. Here's the link (thank Richard Bartz and Poco a poco for the hint):

http://www.zazzle.de/geschenke?sr=250515532871516313&ch=amazinganimals&ps=120

What should we do? --Kadellar (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I know this bad shop and have already seen my Ara a few month ago. I've already contacted the shop in July but got no answer (probably because I wrote in German):

Hi,

Tuxyso (xxx) has sent you a message through the Contact form in your Zazzle Store.

Tuxyso said:

Lieber Shopbetreiber,

Ihnen ist hoffentlich schon klar, dass Sie mir Ihren Postkarten mehrfach das Urheberrecht verletzten. Sie haben sich sehr großzügig für Ihre Tierpostkarten aus dem Archiv von Wikimedia Commons bedient. Von mir betroffen ist die exzellente Aufnahme des Ara, Original s.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ara-Zoo-Muenster-2013-02.jpg

Sie können meine Fotos selbstverständnlich gerne nutzen, allerdings sind sie dabei an die Creative Commons Lizenz gebunden. U.a. sieht dieses vor, dass Sie den Namen des Urhebers und die Lizenz nennen. Diese Angaben kann ich bei den Ara-Postkarten nicht erkennen. Ich gehe davon aus, dass sie auch auf der Postkarte selbst keine Angaben zu dem Urheber machen. Demnach müssten Sie sämtliche Motive, die Sie von Wikimedia Commons kopiert haben aus Ihrem Shop entfernen.

Über eine zeitnahe Antwort Ihrerseits würde ich mich freuen.

MfG

Tuxyso

Your store: amazinganimals

What do you suggest to do? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I also sent this email: Tuxyso said:

Dieses Foto

http://www.zazzle.de/yakbos_grunniens_nahe_yamdrok_see_tibet_poster-228753046068051331

ist ebenfalls von Wikimedia Commons "geklaut" ohne den Urheber zu nennen. Es dann für fast 70 EUR zu verkaufen ist reichlich dreist.

MfG

Tuxyso

The problem is that zazzle is only a plattform (like ebay). On Zazzle user can upload photos and offer photo products. In the case of the shop amazinganimals nearly every photo is taken from COM:FP. What do you suggest to do? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2013

--Tuxyso (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think they should remove all of those items or pay us all for each different item they are selling (1x mobile phone case, 1x poster, etc.) --Kadellar (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The central question is who is "we". For me it is too time-consuming to persecute every copyright violation. The case on http://www.zazzle.de/amazinganimals is not only one copyvio! Thus I would suggest that WMF becomes active and not every individual author. Probably Frank knows what to do in such a case. Nearly every photo in the shop is taken from COM:FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should take the action together, it will be better. I'm trying to make all affected users know this, but I will surely forget some because I can't recognize every image. --Kadellar (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

At least the following files are affected (I've saved it before I contacted Zazzle a few month ago): see list

There are also other photos on Zazzle where the license is correctly placed, e.g. http://www.zazzle.com/grand_canyon_south_rim_from_powell_point_case-179336542339109155 or where the license is partly correct, e.g. http://www.zazzle.com/schloss_moyland_castle_postcard-239379464139072752

It would be great if WMF could help us; besides, it seems this company is located in California too. That list is too short, I have seen many more. I have already written to these users: Samsara, Yathin sk, Biopics, Kookaburra 81, Llez, Laitche, Nhobgood, Startaq, Therry Caro, Leo za1, Michael Gäbler, Ludo29, Diliff, Snowmanradio and Hans Stieglitz. There are more for sure. --Kadellar (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I already contacted the site a few days ago (both via a form and following the link "Report violation" at the bottom of each page with this email address, content_review@zazzle.com), to report the systematic copyright violations of one of their members (http://www.zazzle.de/mbr/238040997476137652), with the hope that he gets a warning. The good thing is that the problem is not general but rather affecting one member. Today I also contacted this person directly to make him/her (after registering in zazzle) aware of the problem. I have added about 20 more images below (6 of them mine), and I gave up.

For me this violations are not acceptable. It is not respectful towards the photographers and it is no help for the movement if the free license is not spread. Poco² 12:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask what you think any of that has to do with any of you? Commons is simply a repository/hosting site is not neither the copyright owner, nor the copyright owners representative. Unless you are the copyright holder you should keep your activity to simply reporting the abuse to the copyright owner so that they can take action if they want. Do you have any knowledge that the relevant photogs haven't licensed the images separately? If you have no evidence to the contrary you should keep your nose out of something that has nothing to do with you. 91.231.145.253 13:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Not my concern? I am affected too. Get out of here you troll. --Kadellar (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Charming! Then it is YOUR responsibility to defend your own copyright, no one else's, and the WMF won't do it for you. Send them a DMCA takedown notice (that is what the thing is for), if that doesn't work then send the same to the hosting site. John lilburne (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons is not a hosting site; we've made that quite clear in DRs over the years. People donate images to Wikimedia Commons, giving them the license the WMF demanded in order to accept the contribution, a license that let others use and redistribute the work uploaded to Commons, a license they quite possibly wouldn't have used otherwise. They should at least have the support of the other users. And I would definitely appreciate a note on my talk page if my work was being used, and doubly so if it was being done without following the license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons is a licensee like anybody else; there is no transfer of copyright. Since the copyright holder is free to make other licensing deals with other licensing parties, the Wikimedia Foundation cannot go around actively looking for potential license violators, and Commons users should exercise care before assuming that publications that don't adhere to the license shown here are copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no transfer of copyright, but Commons is not a licensee like anybody else. I gave to the WMF and no one else my images to use; the fact that the WMF requested and got a Free license does not change their privileged position. The WMF may not be able to go around actively looking for potential license violators, but I don't think that justifies jumping on users who are looking for such things. It can be pretty easy to tell sometimes when a publication is a copyright violator, as getting permission from many editors takes a lot of work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, don't expect much help from the WMF. Despite of the top-level domaine, zazzle.de is located in California, US[14]. So, they should be obliged to follow DMCA deletion requests. If they don't, they are fully liable. May be some U.S.-based user know a litigation lawyer, who will sue the hell out of them ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Only if he's already registered the work with the US copyright office (unlikely as he's in Europe). Prior registration is required in order to claim statutory damages and lawyers fees. Its unlikely a lawyer is going to pick up the case without that. John lilburne (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Prior registration or registration within 3 months of publication. If you're still within that 3 months period from first upload, you can get that registration; if not, the copyright office has decided to register works only put on the web as published or unpublished as requested by the copyright owner. I don't know how the court will look upon it, but the copyright office will let you register it as unpublished.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't fully agree here. We are providing high quality material to the movement and (at least I do) expect that the movement supports us with these matters (standard text for these cases, contact person, etc.). It wouldn't be very productive for the project that skilled photographers give up because nobody takes a CC-BY-SA license seriously. Furthermore the time we spend chasing copyright violators we cannot dedicate to contributing with material to Commons.

Btw, I got feedback from zazzle today:

Hallo Diego,

Vielen Dank, dass Sie uns darauf aufmerksam gemacht haben, dass unsere Benutzer Ihr Bild und ohne Erlaubnis verwenden und wir entschuldigen uns für diese Unannehmlichkeit.

Zazzle respektiert die kreative Expression und die gewerblichen Schutz- und Urheberrechte von jedermann, und wir verlangen das Gleiche von unseren Benutzern. Wie in unseren Nutzungsbedingungen dargelegt, haben wir das Recht, unpassende Inhalte aus dem Zazzle-Marktplatz zu entfernen und die Kontos von Benutzern zu löschen, die die gewerblichen Schutz- und Urheberrechte von Anderen verletzen.

Daher haben wir den Designer, der Ihr Bild benutzt hat kontaktiert und das Produkt wurde von unserer Seite entfernt.

Zazzle Team 

Briefly in English: they apologize, affirm to take copyright seriously, did contact the illegal uploader and removed the picture (I refered to one picture of mine).

I thanked them and ask for deletion of all pictures listed below. Poco² 02:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad you got it sorted to your satisfaction. As you can see only the individual photog can deal with this. It hasn't fix the general issue that they aren't providing appropriate attribution, but the uploader had simply added CC-BY-SA Poco to the online images and a similar note with the receipt of any poster or T-Shirt purchases then they'd be peachy. BTW there is no 'movement' as such the best you can hope for is to generate an internet flash mob that will start sending death threats and such like to the company. Creative Commons people won't do anything to defend the copyright of small photogs, and the WMF aren't going to do it either. Google for example supply CC licensed images in their Google docs app which they tell people can be used for any commercial purposes. John lilburne (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• I sent them an email (in German using Google Translate) asking them to ban the seller completely. I think this is the only way we can be sure that all the images he is selling are not being misused. I found at least 20 images of mine that were being misused, and it's probably just the tip of the iceberg. The guy clearly has no respect for our work or the licence we released the images under. Diliff (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

List of affected images

http://www.zazzle.de/yakbos_grunniens_nahe_yamdrok_see_tibet_poster-228753046068051331
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bos_grunniens_at_Yundrok_Yumtso_Lake.jpg

http://www.zazzle.de/kopf_eines_weisskopfseeadlerhaliaeetus_leucocephal_magnet-147135928626041335
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bald_Eagle_Head_sq.jpg

http://www.zazzle.de/orange_spitze_weiblicher_schmetterling_anthocharis_fotokarten-243354015812558338
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anthocharis_cardamines_female_MichaD.jpg?uselang=de

http://www.zazzle.de/namaqua_chamaleonchamaeleo_namaquensis_photokarte-243985471958287789
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chamaeleo_namaquensis_%28Namib-Naukluft,_2011%29.jpg

http://www.zazzle.de/schwimmender_zoologischer_garten_malaiischer_tiger_fotokarten-243698209142946953
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiger-2.jpg

http://www.zazzle.de/europaische_bienen_esser_vogel_in_ariege_frankreic_fotokarten-243987764158989772
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pair_of_Merops_apiaster_feeding.jpg

http://www.zazzle.de/weisskopfseeadler_combe_martin_tier_u_dinosaurier_postkarte-239618562645628136
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bald.eagle.closeup.arp-sh.750pix.jpg

http://www.zazzle.de/mikroskopische_gliederfusser_acari_milbe_lorryia_f_postkarte-239874760860943812
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yellow_mite_%28Tydeidae%29_Lorryia_formosa_2_edit.jpg

http://www.zazzle.de/konigin_papierwespe_die_zu_ihrem_nest_neigt_fotokarten-243721622086613643
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polistes_May_2013-2.jpg?uselang=de

.. to be continued. FF page info + Google image search helps :) --Tuxyso (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A few more: Poco² 12:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.zazzle.de/stadt_von_chicago_skylinen_chicago_illinois_usa_jumbo_tasse-183019787358860063
http://www.zazzle.de/feld_von_sonnenblumen_helianthus_annuus_h%C3%BClle-179201164842824367
http://www.zazzle.de/hauptgebaude_botanischer_garten_munchen_deutschlan_h%C3%BClle-179041871490022838
http://www.zazzle.de/buntlippen_pflanze_verlasst_solenostemon_scutellar_h%C3%BClle-179849961261049597
http://www.zazzle.de/mexikanische_edelstein_echeveria_elegans_blumen_we_h%C3%BClle-179913596151644383
http://www.zazzle.de/strandde_lanzarote_spanien_plage_de_el_golfo_mousepad-144996358543732910
http://www.zazzle.de/taj_mahal_in_agra_indien_7_wunder_der_welt_postkarte-239149670996312934
http://www.zazzle.de/chichen_itza_pyramide_el_castillo_von_kukulcan_postkarte-239392150420466571
http://www.zazzle.de/ariel_ansicht_des_olbergs_jersalem_israel_aufkleber-217480017526371021
http://www.zazzle.de/grossartiger_kaskaden_sehne_wasserfall_h%C3%BClle-179686184707782257
http://www.zazzle.de/die_tur_zum_naturlichen_erdgasfeld_der_holle_in_de_postkarte-239130039953734227
http://www.zazzle.de/mycena_inclinata_gruppierte_mutzen_standerpilze_h%C3%BClle-179506255451701381
http://www.zazzle.de/dietes_zweifarbige_afrikanische_iris_vierzehn_tage_h%C3%BClle-179368679808961242
http://www.zazzle.de/weisse_china_rosen_malve_hibiskus_rosa_sinensis_h%C3%BClle-179528884306809179
http://www.zazzle.de/genoese_turm_in_porto_sonnenuntergang_ota_korsika-179799635592137129
http://www.zazzle.de/morgen_im_rabivere_natur_park_in_see_kaselaug_h%C3%BClle-179197559334672440
http://www.zazzle.de/crater_see_sudmitteloregon_im_winter_h%C3%BClle-179212387652865125
http://www.zazzle.de/konigliche_albertkonzertsaal_london_england_h%C3%BClle-179074608078087130
http://www.zazzle.de/riesenrad_pont_saint_pierre_toulouse_frankreich_h%C3%BClle-179479571961096342
http://www.zazzle.de/tanzerin_bad_alte_kurtisanen_strasse_hampi-179074074092062265
http://www.zazzle.de/reflexion_auf_water_cueva_de_los_verdes_spanien_h%C3%BClle-179741628002594965
http://www.zazzle.de/der_hugel_der_kreuze_von_nordlitauen_h%C3%BClle-179247370077064445
http://www.zazzle.de/der_kanada_gansbranta_canadensis_leinwand-192011014583364457
http://www.zazzle.de/gruppe_mongolischen_gerbilsmeriones_unguiculatus_aufkleber-217140300963462337
http://www.zazzle.de/atlantischer_papageientaucherfratercula_arctica_halskette-177235222040221161
http://www.zazzle.de/naher_hoher_kopf_des_europaischen_hornissevespa_cr_skateboard-186342419038471321
http://www.zazzle.de/kopf_eines_fliegecalliphoridae-256570164771942016
http://www.zazzle.de/5_grabender_eulenathene_cunicularia_skateboard-186409682589710662

Mögliche Ansprüche gegen die unerlaubte / nicht lizenzkonforme Verwendung müssen die Lizenzgeber selber durchsetzen. Das ist Erledigung fremder Rechtsgeschäfte wozu du nicht befugt bist und auch die WMF nicht befugt wäre, weshalb hilfe von der WMF nicht zu erwarten ist und für die nicht ratsam ist. --Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Some more images that have been misused:

http://www.zazzle.de/kirche_von_st_andrew_alfriston_england_postkarten-239622984089136798
http://www.zazzle.de/schreitener_rand_nahe_gipfel_von_helvellyn_bergen_autoaufkleber-128938485971267059
http://www.zazzle.de/hopetoun_fallt_buchen_wald_victoria_australien_untersetzer-174002824986966213
http://www.zazzle.de/konigliche_albertkonzertsaal_london_england-222743951833653641
http://www.zazzle.de/jamison_tal_blaue_berge_new_south_wales_iphone_h%C3%BClle-256033450944992206
http://www.zazzle.de/st_peter_quadrat_in_der_vatikanstadt_rom_iphone_h%C3%BClle-256675397795592677
http://www.zazzle.de/panorama_der_stadt_von_keswick_cumbria_england_lautsprecher-166513459617713191
http://www.zazzle.de/insel_torbogen_in_panorama_victorias_austraila_tasse-168573737623367105
http://www.zazzle.de/hong_kong_nachtskyline_kaffee_tasse-168508071366720017
http://www.zazzle.de/skyline_panorama_toledos_spanien_teetasse-168057689979403489
http://www.zazzle.de/skyline_panorama_melbournes_australien_kaffeetasse-168930170803574234
http://www.zazzle.de/panorama_lower_manhattans_new_york_kaffee_haferl-168919558105881108
http://www.zazzle.de/sydney_opernhaus_australien_grusskarten-137322295524386528
http://www.zazzle.de/skyline_werft_panorama_melbournes_australien_tasse-168470338544153521
http://www.zazzle.de/hafen_brucke_sydneys_australien_nachts_tasse-168827774430716019
http://www.zazzle.de/turm_brucke_in_london_england_karte-137977631172615073
http://www.zazzle.de/panorama_des_colosseum_an_der_dammerung_grusskarte-137758184846025803
http://www.zazzle.de/big_ben_glockenturm_des_palastes_von_westminster_poster-228318290212489538
http://www.zazzle.de/palast_von_westminster_london_england_posterdruck-228753164792019676
http://www.zazzle.de/panorama_360_von_london_von_st_paul_kathedrale_poster-228160797009545906

I recognised many more from other Wikimedia photographers on the seller's page, but those ones are all mine. Diliff (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian copyright law current events provision

I would like to request a comment on the current events provision in Ukrainian copyright law (article 21.4, English version, Ukrainian original)

The following shall be permitted without the consent of the author (or other copyright holder), but with mandatory indication of the author's name and of the source of borrowing: to reproduce, in order to present current events by means of photography or cinematography, to carry out broadcasting or other public communication of the works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose.

---

Без згоди автора (чи іншої особи, яка має авторське право), але з обов'язковим зазначенням імені автора і джерела запозичення, допускається: відтворення з метою висвітлення поточних подій засобами фотографії або кінематографії, публічне сповіщення або інше публічне повідомлення творів, побачених або почутих під час перебігу таких подій, в обсязі, виправданому інформаційною метою

The legal practice in Ukraine is the following: in the case of an artist against a media holding, the court allowed commercial use of images of artist's works taken during the exhibition based on article 21.4. The artist (who was the plaintiff) claimed that she did not grant the media agency a permission to sell her images, but the court ruled that article 21.4 allows the media agency to use these images as they were taken during an event (Ukrainian original):

Позивач звернувся в суд з позовом до відповідачів про захист авторських прав, вказуючи на те, що в Інтернеті на сторінці фотографічного агентства (...) виставлено на продажу чотири фотографічні зображення, які є фотографічними відтвореннями її робіт, які виконані 07 грудня 2007 року під час її персональної фотовиставки (...).

Умови акредитації не містили заборони фотографувати представлені експонати. Про вказане свідчить те, що сама позивачка, будучи присутньою на презентації персональної виставки, особисто позувала на фоні своїх фотокартин (...).

Згідно ст.21 ч.1 п.4 Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» без згоди автора або автора авторських прав, з обов»язковим зазначенням імені автора і джерела запозичення допускається відтворення з метою висвітлення поточних подій засобами фотографії або кінематографії, публічне сповіщення або інше публічне повідомлення творів, побачених або почутих під час перебігу таких подій, в обсязі, виправданому інформаційною метою».

Враховуючи наведене, на підставі ст. ст.21 ч.1 п.4 Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права», керуючись ст.ст. 10, 11, 60, 211, 212, 213, 215 ЦПК України, суд

ВИРІШИВ:

В задоволенні позовних вимог (...) про захист авторських прав відмовити.

---

The plaintiff addressed to the court to reqest copyright protection, stating that four images picturing her works, that were taken on 7 December 2007 during her personal exhibition, were put on sale on the Internet on the web page of the photo agency (...)

The conditions of accreditation did not include ban on taking photos of exhibits. It is confirmed by the fact that the plaintiff, being present at the presentation of the exhibition, was posing in front of her own works (...)

According to the article 21.4 of the Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related Rights it shall be permitted without the consent of the author (or other copyright holder), but with mandatory indication of the author's name and of the source of borrowing, to reproduce, in order to present current events by means of photography or cinematography, to carry out broadcasting or other public communication of the works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose.

Based on the article 21.4 of the Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related Rights and articles 10, 11, 60, 211, 212, 213. 215 of the Civil Processing Code, the court

RULED:

To refuse the plaintiff in fulfilling her claims on copyright protection

However, an undeletion request for the similar case (Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:Tymoschuk with UEFA Cup in Lutsk.jpg and File:Tymoschuk with UEFA Cup.jpg — a footballer pictured with a copyrighted trophy during a presentation in Ukraine) was closed as it was stated that this provision allows only fair use. Unofortunately, no one could justify the difference between the court decision stating that commercial use is allowed and the Commons deletion request stating that this provision allows only fair use.

Thus I would like to discuss here whether this provision allows hosting images on Commons, and if not, why. Thanks — NickK (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say no. It is restricted to uses "in order to present current events". This is basically a limited fair use provision - we need to be able to use works for any purpose, not just news reporting. darkweasel94 14:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with Darkweasel94. And not only must we be able to use works for any purpose, a time limit also doesn't seem compatible with Commons (I assume that images would have to be deleted as soon as the depicted events aren't "current" any longer, so maybe after a few days or weeks?) Gestumblindi (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that two years after the event, the court explicitly allowed the media agency to sell the images of this event. As far as I can see, the requirements were the following: 1) an object must be pictured during the event, 2) an object must be pictured in the context of event (an artist with her works in the court decision, a player with the cup in the Commons case). I can understand why a photo of a copyrighted object is not OK, but a person with a copyrighted object seems to be exactly what is covered by this article. If a court allows selling photos, why is it fair use for us? — NickK (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both Darkweasel94 & Gestumblindi article 21 of the Ukrainian copyright law is it's fair use section, and as per the Licensing resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) Commons is explicitly forbidden from hosting fair use. The problems with the case you cite are firstly that the owner of the copyrights was the person who invited the pictures to be taken and more fundamentally had the court ruled the other way it would have made it imposiable to be a news photo service or wire service in the Ukraine, the act of selling the images is not the problem it is subsequent use of the images and if that use is not in accordance with the article 21.4 would be the infringement. Now before you say well that means we can use them, no it does not as per the WMF resolution commons does not deal in fair use at all. LGA _talk^edits 04:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the ruling sounds somewhat interesting. If there is a time limit, it would be a problem, but if they are still selling the photos two years after the fact, it may well be there is no time limit. It seems as though as long as they were depicting a current event at the time they were taken, the photo itself does not count as a derivative work and can be sold as-is. In other words, it's not the context of the photo's use (which is where fair use kicks in), but rather the content of the photo itself, and the circumstances of its being taken, which could determine the rights on the photo forever. I'm normally leery of that type of interpretation of the law without a court case to back it up, but this might be such a court case. By the wording of the law I would have not guessed that selling the photo directly was really within the extent justified by the informational purpose (using it in a news article about the exhibition, definitely, but standalone is another matter). But the court case may have decided differently. Hrm. Now... it might be that the sales themselves are OK, but usage of the photos might still be limited by context (i.e. if someone who buys the photos are still limited in the ways they can use them). If that is the case, then we are still in a fair use situation, and they are not free. It would have been more interesting to see a ruling on such photos being used for example on a postcard or calendar; it may be that the sale is only OK for other media services to use but only for informational purposes (which may include referencing the old exhibition and providing a depiction). In that case there is no real time limit, but there still may be a usage limit, and that is still basically fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, its the use that is the issue not the selling , the whole point about fair use is that it all centres on the actual use of the images; one use may be fine another is not. The provision is of help over at ukwp as it gives them grounds to support any Exemption Doctrine Policy, however it is of no use here as we can't host fair use under any circumstances. LGA _talk^edits 06:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Clindberg: : just for information: six years since the event, the photos are still on sale here. I wonder however how an agency can effectively control the usage of the images, or how the court can do this.

There is one more interesting case: a case of artists' heirs v Post of Ukraine. In this case a postal service produced an original envelope with a stamp on the occasion of the artist's jubilee with an original image using fragments of artist's works. Artist's heirs stated that they did not provide permission to use her works, but the postal service explained that this envelope and stamp were created as a part of nationwide programme of celebration of artist's jubilee. The court ruled that celebration of the artist's jubilee falls under recent events, and Post of Ukraine could use artist's work according to article 21.4. The envelope is here, the stamp (which is {{PD-UA-exempt}} is File:Stamp of Ukraine ua202cvs.jpg — NickK (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The agency would not be able to control how they were used. However, anyone who uses them would (in this theory) be subject to copyright infringement lawsuits themselves, if they are used inappropriately. The fact that legitimate uses exist may be enough justification for the continued sales -- they could sell to other news organizations. The main question is if the use of the photos is still limited to informational purposes in news reporting. The post office one is a bit interesting as well... the United States Post Office lost a somewhat similar lawsuit recently (using a photo of a copyrighted statue... they licensed the photo but not the statue). But you might wonder if using that same work (as seen on the stamp) outside the context of the jubilee would be an issue as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the image File:Stamp of Ukraine ua202cvs.jpg is covered by the court case, but this very stamp and envelope are used four years after the jubilee, and the court ruling was three years after the jubilee. What seems to be important is that the work itself uses the copyrighted work so that it is justified by informative purposes. In the case of a stamp and an envelope it probably means that the image on the envelope depicting parts of paintings is OK, but use of these paintings separately most likely is not OK. Looks like this article is more like a permission to produce derivative works under certain conditions without restrictions on the usage — NickK (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly what fair use is. LGA _talk^edits 22:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If you mean that any permission to use the work under certain conditions is fair use, than you should delete all pictures of copyrighted objects, as any FOP provision is fair use: we are never allowed to reproduce a building in the form of building, or a sculpture in the form of sculpture. However, we have a limited permission with some restrictions: for FOP it may be only certain types (e.g. not railway stations) / only outdoors / only from public places (but not from the air) etc. This is not a full permission, this permission is only for certain cases. Here we have another type of permission: to reproduce in the case where the use of original work is justified by the informational purpose. Again, this is not a full permission, again this permission is only for certain cases. Why the restriction to picture only from certain angle (e.g. German FOP) is OK for you, but the restriction to picture only in certain context (context of current events) is not? As we have found out, these restrictions are not about the use of resulting work, but about the use of original work that we reproduce on the photo — just like we reproduce buildings and sculptures under FOP provisions — NickK (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference with FOP is that for the most part there are a pre-defined set of rules which apply and once they have been meet the resulting image is free to use without further restrictions, but there are issues with it - see this freedom of panorama case and strictly speaking any non-building FOP image could be a copyvio in the US, conversely any image of a building deleted from commons for FOP issues can be hosted on enwp without restriction. In the case of the UEFA cup image as the law put restrictions on it's use ie it is free to use in the context of the teams victory but not necessarily in other ways, that difference is what makes it fair use and not a FOP. LGA _talk^edits 22:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the court cases and comments by Carl Lindberg? Fair use is generally not something that can justify the use on the postal envelope that is sold nationwide or a photo being put on sale by a media agency. Of course, in case of UEFA Cup it is OK to use it in the context of the team's victory (e.g. a team with the cup) but not necessarily in other ways (e.g. a cup itself in some unidentified room) — any provision has its restrictions. Same set of rules, and pretty much as tricky as FOP (it is not much easier to define a public place than a current event — we have eternal disputes whether X is considered public in a given country) — NickK (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that the Ukraine fair use provisions seem to exceed even that of the US and that the stamp ruling further shows that, but it still is a fair use provision as far as commons is concerned. LGA _talk^edits 02:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be playing with words. Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, as English Wikipedia says. In this case any FOP-related provision is fair use by definition, as it is an exception to the exclusive right granted to the author of a creative work. Namely, this exception allows other to picture his or her work under certain conditions. Thus yes, this provision is an exception falling under the definition of fair use — exactly like all FOP provisions are. What do you want to prove with this? — NickK (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Carly Melin.jpg & File:D.melanogaster Female Sperm Storage.jpg

Can someone please give attribution to these images with an OTRS ticket? I don't know who got these image's OTRS tickets--hence the pd-license template problem. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Someone with OTRS access has resolved the problem here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:DdNTP.jpg

Hello, I'm a bit confused by this file, which is supposed to be under Free Art License (according to its description) but the file is obviously under copyright. I wanted you to be informed, as I don't know how does file deletion request work on commons. Thanks, have a good day ! Pkthib (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the Free Art License is wrong, but although there is an assertion of copyright in the bottom left-hand corner of the file ("Unnumbered figure pg 138 / Biochemistry, Sixth Edition / © 2007 W. H. Freeman and Company"), it seems to me that since this is a diagram of a molecule consisting entirely of letters and numbers, some of which are connected by lines, it is too simple to be copyrightable (some of the lines form a pentagon, but that is a simple shape). Thus, {{PD-textlogo}} is applicable, and the file should be edited to remove the erroneous copyright statement. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about copyright status tag for File:YuJiaoLiEnglishversion.pdf

What copyright status tag exactly applies to File:YuJiaoLiEnglishversion.pdf? I put down UK-unknown, as the front page by Google states that it is in the public domain. It is from the library of the University of Macau: http://library.umac.mo/ebooks/b26028219a.pdf

Also how do I set it up on Wikipedia so that the preview image of this work is set at a custom page instead of the Google-appended first page?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate license - if using someone else's scan or photograph, it's always wise to include the PD-scan or PD-art template. I'll leave the question for how to render for someone else, although you might get a faster answer with the Mediawiki nerds (as a certified nerd myself, I feel I have the right to call other people by that name). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Use [[File:YuJiaoLiEnglishversion.pdf|page=5]] for a specific page. Replace 5 with whatever page you are interested in. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Lego Star Wars

I came across Category:Lego Star Wars today, and I am wondering why it is not simply a copyright violation. Now I understand that people purchase the models themselves, and that the models are appropriately licensed by Lego from LucasArts/Disney, but if people build those things, they have created a replica of the original Lego design, and I am curious to know why that would not itself be copyrighted. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought: is there any (enough?) creativity involved in building the things? Would they if somebody had built something non-Star Wars themed out of Lego? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And if it's not a licensed one, then it would be a derivative work anyway? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware none of those examples would be considered free enough for commons. A something on display in a museum in a liberal FOP country would be about the only way we could have a usable pic of lego starwars.16:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File import from tractors.wikia.com

Can the file Modern_Unimog_in_the_UK_-_AE54_GWN_at_Belvoir_2011_-_IMG_3508 be uploaded (or even directly be transferred) to Commons?--GoMinU (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I already found it out by myself. The file is licensed by the author under the terms of the "cc-by-sa-3.0". I already uploaded it via the UploadWizard.--GoMinU (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)