Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/04

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

File:Seal of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama.svg

This file was brought up at en.wiki, and I as looked at here, I saw some possibly problems, but want to check before nominating it for deletion. The image here is a combination of free license/PD elements (the scales are a contributors free upload, the outline of Alabama and the circle seal text uncopyrightable in the US). However, I will note that the seal per [1] is different (specifically the scales), and that the image itself is given a 1977 creation date. And best I can tell, Alabama does not have the PD-gov type license, making that seal copyrightable. My question/concern is if this SVG here, despite the creation of otherwise free works, combined together form a derivative work (even with the different scale image) that is effectively copyrighted by the State of Alabama, and thus that we cannot have at commons. --Masem (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Published in 1977. PD-US-no notice? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
To me, it's not a derivative work of the one at [2] -- it's a different expression of the same design. See Commons:Coats of arms. The basic design is often not copyrightable, just the small details of the expression. I would particularly tend that way for governmental seals; don't take or trace graphic versions taken from state websites but drawing your own is a different matter. Governmental seal designs are also often declared in law, or ordnance, making that aspect (and sometimes the exact depiction) PD-EdictGov. Also, as mentioned, it sounds like the original was almost certainly published without notice before 1989, so it would probably be PD on that score as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
As explained on the Alabama source webpage, it was designed and introduced informally, not by legislative or executive edict. But good grief, since the scales are different, what, exactly is the point? Do we put up country flags with the stars upside down? Should the name of the file be moved to "Almost the Seal of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama.svg"? Choor monster (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Seals typically have some legal effect; the judge asking for it may be enough of an executive edict. More likely, even the original depiction is probably PD due to lack of notice. Secondly, the scales being slightly different does not mean it's a different seal... there is always an amount of artistic license allowed. For example, see the w:Great Seal of the United States and all the different variations over the years; they are all the Great Seal even if the artistic depictions are very different. The different versions do make a difference in copyright though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine now on this specific image, forgetting about the 1977 non-notice publication issue, so I'm not worried about this case. But on a broader question, let's assume the seal was not formally described in the legislation of the state, and the design was and remained copyrighted. Would our assembled version (using only PD and free license material) to make something that appears similar to the original copyrighted image be considered a derivative work of that image, and thus be a copyright issue? Again, I'm asking in the broad sense, not to question this image. --Masem (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You're assuming the basic design is copyrightable; I'm not sure of that. At some level, the design is an idea, which is not copyrightable, only specific expressions of that idea (see w:idea-expression divide). If all of the elements were not copyrightable, you can still copyright the "selection and arrangement" of the various elements, which is where a detailed design would more likely be copyrightable itself. But doing that with just a couple of elements (state outline, scales) and centering them, probably would not amount to a copyright there. The more elements, and the more original their arrangement, then yes it would be more possible to have a re-created version be a derivative work of that "selection and arrangement" copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. There's probably also the artistic question: eg I can construct most of Piet Mondrian's art from simple shapes but that would be a problem due to the original artistic nature of the work. This is more a utilitarian symbol and might even fail TOO. --Masem (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Mondrian is a very good example -- for many of those, they are arranging rectangles, so there is no copyright in the elements but there is based on the arrangement, which is definitely copyrightable. So yes, re-creating the exact arrangement in an SVG or other work would be a problem. On the other hand, there is not really any "artistic value" question, at least in the U.S. The visual impact, aesthetic value, or commercial appeal has no bearing on copyright -- if something looks cool but its elements and selection/arrangement are not copyrightable, should not get protection. Other countries can differ... for one example, the cloth-wrapped Reichstag got copyright protection in Germany I think, but the U.S. Copyright office refused to register it in the United States: Even aesthetically pleasing and artistically interesting works may not be registrable if they lack the sufficient modicum of expression of original authorship. So, making something which has a similar visual impact as Mondrian's works, or seems to be in his style, would not be a problem if the exact arrangement was not copied, but an original arrangement is used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Donated photos

Hello ! I asked an old photographer if I could use one or twp pictures of the former Swedish footballer Sonny Johansson, who played 600+ caps for Landskrona BoIS and scored 309 goals. (and also 3 for Sweden, scoring 1 goal). The photographer is born in 1935 and knows next to nothing about different liecences. He has however donated me two photos of this player. He only wants it to be clear that the photo is taken by himself, Bertil Persson, has taken the shots. And I suggested that the pictures will be given a liecens for free work except for commercial use (not full Public domain). I've asked him to do the upload himself, but he just about has heared about Commons or Wikipedia. And also English is too difficult for him. Could someone please help me , both how to begin the upload and which liecence I shall choose. Boeing720 (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That's incompatible with Commons. It's a free licence here (including freedom for commercial use), or nothing.
They might like to upload merely a low-res version here (i.e. insufficient for book publishing), but even that has problems: it would still be useful for commercial web use, secondly this low/high res issue is currently a US legal grey area (see threads above).
They might even like to upload to the Wikipedia(s) under a non-free licence (any licence they like, as it will be grabbed despite, claiming fair use). It would have to meet the local fair use rules (en:WP:NFC on en:WP), but sounds as if it ought to easily enough. They then don't need to grant any sort of commercial licence, yet it can still be used on en:WP (I don't know the Swedish position on non-free content). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Reguarding first answer, there seems to exisy a number of liecence to choose from. I presumed (but was obviously wrong) that full public domain could be excluded. However the photographer, do as I've already stated, only want's his name on his photos (somehow, in the bottom left corner). I'm aware of "fair use", but then article photos cannot be used in Swedish Wikipedia. That's not a big concerne for me, but still a bit sad, think. Are there any liecence that I can use at Commons, where "photo donated by BERTIL PERSON" can be printed at the photo ? Boeing720 (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is not the attribution requirement, but rather the restriction prohibiting commercial use. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed - the standard license CC-BY-SA requires attribution, so the photographer can of course require that his name is always given, but he can't exclude commercial re-use, the non-commercial ("NC") clause isn't accepted on Wikimedia projects, including Commons, as part of a free license. A file with "NC" clause is seen as unfree, so could only be used locally in those Wikipedias that accept some form of "fair use" as any other unfree file. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I thank You all for Your advices. I solved the problem with a "fair use" upload instead. That's sad for some of the editors at Swedish Wikipedia, I agree. Howcome local Wikipedia's of all languages cannot use "fair"-licences, by the way ? I also want to say that from "the outside" the rules are not easy to learn, into all details. Why not separate "for Wikipedia use only" (all languages) from commercial use in the future. I think lots of old photographers would donate interesting pictures - if they only were sure that no one else becomes a millionaire two years later, based on the donated photos. This does not exclude Public Domain. Is Wikipedia Commons a part of Wikipedia - or not ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no such thing as Wikipedia Commons, and Commons is not a part of Wikipedia, but rather a sister project. The Wikimedia Foundation oversees Wikimedia Commons, the Wikipedia projects in hundreds of languages, Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikivoyage and several other projects.
Yes, we could get a lot more contributions if we accepted non-free content, but maximising contributions is not our primary objective. Developing and collecting content that is free for anyone to use for any purpose is a founding principle of the Wikimedia projects.
I agree that the rules are not always easy to learn. The rules of Commons and Swedish Wikipedia are quite simple: free content only. English Wikipedia and the other projects that have chosen to stray from that founding principle and accept non-free content have much more complex rules. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawal of self-sourced uploads?

I'm concerned by this repeated comment from Fastily, "I'm afraid that assumption of good faith is not applicable to copyright, and it never has been here on Commons. The burden of proof is placed upon the uploader to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that they are the sole copyright holder/authorized to publish a file under a Commons-compatible license."

Now as this literally states, self-declaration of sourcing and licensing is thus not acceptable at Commons and presumably everything will now require OTRS.

When did this change to an incresed standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt" come about? It never used to be that way. Why is Fastily in charge of setting policy like this? I know that Fastily's interpretation of policy has long been a law unto itself (anything Fastily wants deleted, he will delete forthwith), but why has AGF been abandoned in favour of deletionist bureaucracy? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I believe your concern is addressed at COM:EVID where it reads: "This page is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons....In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:
  • the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and
  • that any required consent has been obtained." I think this is most likely the policy from which Fastily is drawing the statement above. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Fundamentally, the issue becomes what doubts one considers "reasonable." - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
That policy requires "appropriate evidence", which is somewhat tautological. The question is, what level is "appropriate"? Our past practice has been that we accept self declarations on upload, until there is suspicion to the contrary. Fastily is now demanding proof "beyond all reasonable doubt", something that is far in excess of practice and the literal text of COM:EVID. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
For self-sourced uploads, in general, yes we should assume good faith. But once we see that copies exist on the internet, such that it's impossible to tell the difference between someone who actually owned the copyright uploading the files versus someone who copies those internet versions and then uploaded them, the standard changes and we start needing either OTRS evidence, or enough evidence on the original website that the works are licensed, or enough indication that the copyright has expired in the country of origin and the U.S. We do not accept "own work" statements when the same bitmap can be found on the internet, as uploading internet images is a constant problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Commons, a project to disseminate freely-licensed media across the web, should not take the post facto existence of such images on that web to then be seen as prima facie evidence for their deletion! This is what Fastily is now doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if the internet copies only post-date their upload to Commons, that should not be an issue (unless some aspect brings it into doubt... like uploads marked "own work" by the same uploader but which turn out to be by different photographers, or the uploader had a history of copyvios, or some aspect of the claim which indicates a misunderstanding of copyright, or something like that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
A simple mail to COM:OTRS should fix this issue. Yann (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
What on earth is "simple" about a mail to OTRS? We're talking about 10 years of uploads, ten squillion images (or whatever it is) and contributions by editors who have been dormant for several years. These are also editors who made GF uploads, following our declared policy that self-claims were recognised. There is no credible way that such images can generate these "simple" mails to OTRS – nor is there any other reason to require them, other than this self-declared change in practice from Fastily. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I made a list of situations where I've seen Fastily say something like that lately:
  • self-sourced uploads where the image is marked in metadata "(c) Someone Else";
  • self-sourced uploads where a previous version of the image was marked (c) Getty Images on the Getty website;
  • self-sourced uploads where the uploader says on their user page that they're under age 18, and the photo was taken in 1963;
  • self-sourced uploads where the uploader says "Someone gave me this picture and said it was ok";
  • self-sourced uploads where the uploader says "Author unknown" and then tags it with an open license;
  • self-sourced uploads where the uploader says "it's free, it's all over the internet"; and
  • self-sourced uploads of artwork listed with author "Someone Else" and a {{PD-self}} tag.
I think we need to consider the circumstances of the uploader licences and statements before just a blanket "this is wrong" judgement. Plus there's nothing difficult about mailing or emailing to OTRS. It's no harder than uploading the image and certainly if someone asked me to prove or attest that a certain photo in my gallery was mine, I would have no issues with working with OTRS to prove it.
Incidentally I have had at least one photo deleted from my uploads (I don't remember if it was one or two), but I got into a big argument with the nominator (which I lost), but after that he suggested I work with deletions to see what the Commons admins had to do daily to stem the tide of unusable images (COM:COPYVIO & COM:SCOPE).
He was right. If you work with deletions even for a short time, you'll see that an unfortunate minority of the folks who upload to Commons are here to game the system some how, to gain advantage, to promote, to gain prestige (even if it's only their own view) by uploading some special picture. I've seen galleries of copyvios, copyrighted pictures of bands you never heard of, copyrighted news photos, and finally porn... yes people even upload copyrighted penis pictures!! My faith in uploaders being of COM:AGF is unshaken, but yes, there's times we need to be a bit stiff and push people through the hoops. Remember the COM:PRP states that we are working for the best project we can and that uncertain images are the duty of the uploader to prove the license.
I personally don't think it is a "delete for deletion's sake" culture you're seeing, it's a "We believe in Free Images, and the only way to provide them is to be very certain that they are Free." Personally I'm happy to see User:Fastily zooming along. Remember in deletions, the uploader has seven days to reply, the deletion will be held if OTRS pending, and even if it gets deleted it can go to COM:UNDEL for a second review. It's not a final process, it's just the only process we have. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
For dormant users there is no big chance about response in seven days - even I am often away for months, whether or not I have recently made an upload. I might ask for undeletion of an image of mine, even just to make a point, but somebody not a regular will not start a fight about an image Commons did not seem to want. And I will never know the image I am searching for indeed exists on Commons, when it is available only by undeletion.
We do have to delete images when there is serious doubt, and the list above seems to be about cases where such doubt is justified (to say the least). But we should make the decision on the assumption that the files are gone when they are deleted (unless there is OTRS pending or some other specific reason to expect later action). Files should not be deleted without good reason to doubt claimed own work status.
--LPfi (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The standard has always been that an uploader's statement that he owns the rights to a photo is evidence. The uploader's statement that he had consent to take a photo is also evidence (that dates back to the great COM:SEX arguments) A statement that a photo is self-made is a positive assertion, and it's not actually without cost, because if someone does decide to sue over the photo, they can say that the photo would never have been distributed in X magazine if the uploader hadn't made this assertion. Wnt (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Views from OTRS volunteers

When I give an OTRS ticket to an image on Commons based on a received email, I would only do background checks on the correspondent if there is a reason to do so, often the email has an explanation of context that is sufficient ("I took this photo on holiday in Turkey, it is my wife in the photo..."). Background checks might include reviewing the email address domain public registration records, seeing if the named/pseudonymous correspondent has a professional website or public profile, nothing more intrusive or complex. An image upload where the Commons community can assume good faith from the uploader does not need an OTRS ticket.

Having a ticket may mean no other information is provided on OTRS than was provided on upload, as the standard declaration was sufficient. We may even accept claims of copyright coming from a free email anonymous account (for example, established accounts such as people writing here with user pages and more than trivial on-wiki track records, people uploading under their real names which are easily checked without needing more information recorded on OTRS, images where there are no Tineye/Google search matches with other claims of copyright and there is credible EXIF data).

Keep in mind that OTRS is not guaranteed to be private or confidential, we can only advise that our volunteers are trusted to respect confidentially where appropriate. The WMF would not be liable if records were made public though accident or, other reasons. If we are asking volunteer uploaders to write to OTRS, in that process we may be asking them to compromise their fair expectations of anonymity or privacy, there may be occasions where this means the uploaders will go away rather than either face the bureaucracy of our system and our lack of good faith, when there has been no proper rationale for significant doubt.

Should we ever be faced with mass referrals to OTRS (where there are only a handful of OTRS volunteers active on the Commons queues each week), the likely result would be either slightly pointless mass approvals, or "less interesting/hard work" emails being left in the queue for several months, long after the image has been deleted (where 'hard work' includes all those correspondents that need replies that are not covered by OTRS boiler plate responses), by which time the uploader would probably have lost interest or lost faith in our project(s). --Fæ (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

uploading help

hi guys.

i'm trying to upload the following picture: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pIZx_iZahYE/UUVINM_12BI/AAAAAAAABP0/eg46n9kxgRA/s1600/Empire+Empire+I+Was+A+Lonely+Estate.jpg

however, I'm unsure of the copyright surrounding it. it came from sophiesfloorboard.blogspot.com, and i'm only using this image for an article on the band in question, Empire! Empire! (I Was A Lonely Estate).

thanks!--Barkjon (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Post-1978 US stamps using PD-old works

This is coming from an NFC discussion about stamps on en.wiki, but I think I found a way to allow some of what is being called non-free as free, and need to double check on that here.

Specifically, US Stamps post 1978 do not fall into the PD-USGov template and are copyrighted. However, as for example here File:United States Christmas stamp 1982 Madonna of the Goldfinch, Giovanni Battista Tiepolo c. 1760.jpg the core artwork is a reproduction (not recreation) of a PD-old image, and the added text atop it would not be sufficient to create a new copyright and as such the stamp is PD-ineligible. This seems to make sense, but I want to check that first.

As such, we have a line of recent (post 78) stamps that commemorate the Civil War. Example stamps include these two [3], which as the text explains, use the paintings from here and here File:Battle_of_Antietam_by_Thulstrup.jpg. Both works are clearly PD-old. There's some cleanup/lithography work to improve the stamp's visual aspects but as I understand, this is not creating a new copyright and the added text does not either. So, as long as we can demonstrate the underlying work is PD-old, and that no other novel/creative additions are on top of it, then the stamp is PD-ineligible, correct?

As such, assuming this is correct, it makes complete sense to upload these stamps to Commons. Assuming that is true, would it also be preferable to upload the original artwork as well (if not already present) as to provide a separate page that justifies the original art as being PD-old, and pointing to that as the Christmas stamp does to have that chain of PD-ness clearly evident on the stamp page? --Masem (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if there were no copyrightable additions made to a PD work, then it remains PD. The 1978 line for US stamps is more for when they stopped being USGov works, so if a copyright existed in the first place it would have to be licensed separately to host here. But stamps with nothing copyrightable should be fine. Sometimes, there can be additionally copyrightable elements (the mezzotint process for copying a painting was once ruled to have enough of its own creativity), but the ones you point out would be fine (the addition of labels is not copyrightable). As for uploading the original painting, sure, that'd be a very good idea -- but I don't think it would be required, as anyone could research the original painting and figure out its age, which is enough evidence. But we want all the free files we can get, and the easier you make the evidence to verify, the easier on everyone else, so it's definitely preferable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This is what I thought, and just wanted confirmation, thanks! --Masem (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: As you heard from me first regarding the Fort Sumner stamp in that set (and I got it from a template) ... But the whole thing is a nonsense given the clear statement from USPS about fair use, that it allows its images for educational works and catalogues. You can argue your knickers into a twist about the issues, but the fact of the matter is that a profusely illustrated article in English Wikipedia about a US commemorative stamp issue such as the Great Americans series, profusely illustrated even to the point of every stamp being illustrated (but in that case there should be contextually significant text to satisfy general, I don't mean copyright, requirements concerning "list" articles) do not represent a legal threat to Wikipedia, nor can it represent a threat to the "free-content" ideal you apparently valorize even more than Wikipedia's mission to disseminate knowledge since these stamps cannot possibly be replaced by free content in the foreseeable future. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Interpreting Fair Use is not an issue for Commons. You may wish to continue on the local project if the guidelines there need to be made simpler to understand. --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, I appreciate that. But the issue that brought Masem here was "saving" non-free content. He didn't really need to bring it up here because the situation was already settled, he just wasn't aware of it. I was just pointing out the background. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture from Archives of Canada

Hi there. I'd like to upload a picture to the Commons, but I'm unsure of the copyright status. This is the pic [4]. I know that in Canada, all photographs taken before 1 January, 1949 are in the public domain, and all Works subject to Crown Copyright enter the public domain 50 years after publication. As you can see, the picture is from 1957, and it states on the page "Copyright assigned to Library and Archives Canada by copyright owner John Sebert." Is it ok to upload? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You removed this section [5] and you said you figured out the copyright. Well, please share your findings. I cant see what reason of Template:PD-Canada (which by the way is a horrible template) applies to File:Elvis Presley - Toronto, Ontario, Canada - 1957.jpg]. Crown copyright? No, the file is not prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department but prepared and published by a private photographer and far later asigned to the LAC. Copyright expiration? Not taken before 1949, photographer not died >50 years ago. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your what-the-heck-are-you-trying-to-pull-here response. Ok... the Library and Archives are a branch of the Government of Canada, and the Copyright Act of Canada states that "any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year". This work "is...published...under the...control of...[a] government department", and it states on the picture page that the copyright has been "assigned to Library and Archives Canada by copyright owner John Sebert." This seems to meet the "or" criteria of Template:PD-Canada. No? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The section quoted includes the words "subject to any agreement with the author". An assignment of copyright is necessarily a contractual agreement. This particular agreement was made with the author. Also, it can be noted that, per section 14 of the Copyright Act, an assignment of copyright made by the author is limited to a duration shorter than the duration of the copyright itself. The maximal duration of such assignment does not exceed 25 years after the death of the author. Whereas the duration of the copyright itself is 50 years after the author's death. At the end of the period of the assignment, the temporary possession of the copyright that was held by the assignee ends and the copyright fully reverts to the estate of the author. LAC's notice is clear on the fact that LAC is using the work in its quality as assignee, under the terms of the contractual assignment by the author and assignor John Sebert. It does not say that the work was under a Crown copyright and/or that the copyright has expired. LAC does not imply that the mere action of its publication of the work abolished the ordinary copyright on it. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Magnolia677 has raised some good points, but ultimately I do not think I agree. The LAC page on Sebert makes clear that he was a professional photographer who worked (presumably freelance) for private magazines like Weekend Magazine, the Star Weekly, Chatelaine and Maclean's. His collection was donated to LAC in 1997. This photo was not prepared or published by, or under the control, of the government, unless we can show that it was never published back in the 1950s (which is possible - he could have taken numerous photographs that day, of which only others were used by Sebert's client(s)) and was never made publicly available in Canada until it was acquired by LAC (and even then it would still be copyrighted until 2048). Absent such evidence, the clear presumption is that it was published by Sebert, or someone else under contract with Sebert, in the 1950s. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The LAC website states "where information has been produced by another party or copyright is not held by the Government of Canada, the materials may be protected under the Copyright Act and international agreements. Details concerning copyright ownership are indicated on the relevant page(s)." And on that relevant page, it states "Restrictions on use: Nil", and "copyright assigned to Library and Archives Canada by copyright owner John Sebert." While COM:PCP cautions--for good reason--against bad faith uploads where we hope "the copyright owner will never find out," this seems just the opposite: the copyright owner relinquished his copyright to the Government of Canada (see Assignments and licences (4)). And based on the "nil" restrictions, the copyright was probably assigned wholly. So, if the copyright owner of this picture is now the Government of Canada, and they have put no restrictions on it (other than commercial use), the King stays at Maple Leaf Gardens? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not Crown Copyright. It was a private copyright, so that person owned the copyright. It sounds like the copyright was transferred to the Library, but they would then be the owner of the (normal, non-Crown) copyright. I'm pretty sure that section of the law is for material first published by the government, not anything they obtain later on, and I'm not sure it would apply to a donation like this even if this was the first publication -- the gift was under the control of the author, not the government. (And even if that did count, if 1997 was the first publication, Crown Copyright would last until 2048). Now... it's entirely possible that the Library could disclaim any rights they would otherwise own. They do seem to have a "Restrictions: nil" statement on the image page, but I'm not sure if that is a web page programming error, or if they truly want to make it available without restriction, or if it just means that there are no additional donor-imposed restrictions apart from copyright. If it does refer to the copyright license, then it's a form of PD-author (they are not the author, but the copyright owner) and it would be OK. PD-Canada would not be an appropriate tag, to my mind, though, and I can't quite tell (given their commercial use restriction on their usage page) what "Restrictions on use: Nil" really means. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't misinterpret this as "others have done it so why can't I", but there are other photos that have been approved for the Commons which have the exact same copyright status as the Elvis picture. Perhaps there was some policy or practice that has been missed? For example, the very beautiful Vivien Leigh [6] was photographed by Roloff Beny, who died in 1984. The LAC information for the picture states: "Restrictions on use: Nil", and "Copyright assigned to Library and Archives Canada by copyright owner the Estate of Roloff Beny." As well, there are several photos in the Commons by Ted Grant, such as this one and this one. Again, the LAC info is identical. Thank you again for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
As explained on LAC's website, the things mentioned in "Restrictions on use: ..." refer to restrictions other than copyright. However, many years ago, some users were indeed confused by this mention, believed it was a copyright permission and uploaded some LAC files in that belief. Since then, to avoid more mistakes, a warning was posted in the place where users might be expected to see it, in the category page for images from LAC, and maybe in other places, including a link to a mail directly from LAC restating their position. Some cleanup was made, but you can still find some of those old non-free files still floating around. And users who may not have seen the warning may upload files by mistake occasionally. When you find one that is not free, please nominate it for deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems like the examples you gave are some single files that Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images and others missed. The "Nil" means that there are no restrictions for them to grant you a license to reuse the image if you ask for for a license, see their mail. Possible restrictions are restrictions other then copyright, see Asclepias comment. There is only one question here: Can the Crown have copyrights assigned to them. --Martin H. (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The examples linked by the initiator of the thread suggest that is not unusual for LAC, for one example of an organization under government authority, to request a contractual assignment of copyright to itself (LAC) in some cases when it acquires physical archives that embody copyrighted works. There should not be a problem that governmental organizations can be assigned copyrights. But that does not transform the ordinary copyright on those works into a Crown copyright. And the assignment is limited in time. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Can the Queen license copyright? I mean seriously, can Wikipedia get together a delegation and try to convince her just to generously will over all the Crown copyright materials to the public domain from before some date, no matter which Commonwealth member they are held in? Wnt (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Surat airprot photos

some of my photos which I uploaded yest were deleted due to copyright issue. I want to let you know that they are from web but me and my other friends went to airport to take those photos which we uploaded on social networking cite. I'm just using our taken photos for Wikipedia. Can I upload it back and not to get that violation again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsht12 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Home-made non-commercial license

I've encountered a problem I'm not sure how to deal with: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lessemsaurus_Senckenberg.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons contributors can offer as many licenses for a file as they wish, as long as at least one of them meets the criteria for free licenses specified in the Commons licensing policy (at Commons:Licensing). Details are at Commons:Multi-licensing. This editor is doing something like {{GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc-3.0}}. This approach to licensing offers an easy to use CC license to non-commercial reusers while commercial use is limited to a more challenging license like GFDL 1.2 (which is quite inconvenient in a traditional "printing on paper" reuse). Arguably this approach is somewhat antithetical to Commons philosophy, but it's got a long precedent on Commons. —RP88 01:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

New URAA policy and the rule of the shorter term

Now that Commons has decided that the URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion, it's not immediately clear to me how deletion policy should be applied. The URAA restored the U.S. copyrights on foreign works that failed to comply with U.S. formalities. However, the US is not one of the countries with the rule of the shorter term and this is not something due to the URAA. As far as I can determine the recent decision regarding the URAA has not overturned the Commons policy of requiring hosted images to be PD in both the source country and the U.S.

If I understand the new policy correctly, we are still going to require that images indicate why they are PD in both the source country and the U.S, correct? Are we acting as if the URAA was never passed? For example, will we permit the hosting of works with shorter terms (such as as {{PD-AR-Photo}} or {{PD-China}}) only if the uploader can show that the image would have been PD in the U.S. (i.e. via {{PD-US no notice}} or other failure to comply with U.S formalities) as if the URAA had never existed? Or, alternatively, have we dropped the "must be PD in source country and U.S." requirement and now just require PD in the source country? —RP88 12:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As I understand, most foreign works do not comply with US formalities, so would effectively be in the public domain in USA because of {{PD-US no notice}}. Actually, that's the whole point of URAA: that foreign works do not have to comply with these formalities to get a copyright in USA. It is quite difficult, read nearly impossible, to prove that these formalities were not fulfilled, and that's precisely what the WMF says: as volunteers, we could not get the information to know that. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, starting 1 March 1989 the U.S. had no notice requirement, but given that the number of PD foreign works on Commons published after 1989 is probably vanishingly small, that's probably a minor point. For foreign works published before 1989, since Commons has a requirement that all images have copyright tags that indicate both source and U.S. copyright status, should we still require them to have an explicit {{PD-US no notice}} tag or (if they have notice, but published before 1963) a {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag? —RP88 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, it is quite impossible to know which one of these applies. I think that's what {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is made for. This template may need to be tweaked. {{PD-US no notice}} would be misleading for reusers. And I agree that post-1989 images are a different case. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you comfortable with asking uploaders who wish to use the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag instead of one of the PD US tags to provide evidence that the image was published (not just created) prior to 1 March 1989 (the date that the U.S. dropped all formal requirements)? —RP88 14:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. What's the alternative? And for unpublished works? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I was unclear, I think it would be reasonable to ask users of the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag to be able demonstrate that the image was published (not just created) prior to 1 March 1989 and was wondering if you thought so as well. I don't have an alternative to suggest, but as this is largely a matter of Commons policy, I suppose the alternative could be anything Commons wanted it to be. As regards unpublished works, the U.S. has never had any copyright formalities for unpublished works, so unpublished works have never been at issue for URAA. —RP88 16:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that if a UK (say) image was published in the UK after 1 March 1989 then it was immediately in both UK and US copyright. Hence it did not have URAA restoration in 1996 because it was in US copyright.[7] Hence URAA doesn't come into the matter at all. Does it? However, this has no practical effect for the time being because its UK copyright means it will not be allowed anyway. Thincat (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
As long as Commons applies integrally the US Copyright Act (including the URAA-related sections of the Act), things were relatively simple for Commons when dealing with non-US works, because in general it is not really necessary for Commons to actually check if a pre-1989 non-US work had a copyright notice or not, as long as it is established 1) that the work is indeed a non-US work (first publication outside the US and no publication in the US inside of 30 days) and 2) that the work would not meet the URAA-related requirements if it is assumed that it did not have a copyright notice. For example, take a news photo published in Argentina in 1974 (Template:PD-AR-Photo). If that photo (or the publication where it was included) had a valid copyright notice, then that photo was always, and still is, protected in the US by the US law, without any intervention of the URAA. If that photo (and the publication where it is included with the consent of the copyright owner) did not have a copyright notice, then that photo became protected in the US by the URAA-related provisions of the US law. So, either way, notice or not, the work is protected in the US, either by the pre-existing, "ordinary", sections of the US law (if the work had a valid notice) or by the URAA-related sections of the US law (if the work did not have a valid notice). Thus, it is not necessary for Commons users to waste time and effort to check if the publication had a notice or not, because, either way, the file is protected in the US and thus per the Commons policy it must be deleted from Commons. For simplicity, some users sort of assume that the work had no notice, because, notice or not, it makes no practical difference for the actual result of deleting the file from Commons, although there is actually a difference in the exact legal section of the US Copyright Act under which the work is not free. When some users say "not free under the URAA", sometimes that might be a shortcut which implicitly means "we didn't check if there was a copyright notice or not, but this file is not free in the US, either because it had a copyright notice or, if it did not have one, because of the URAA". But now, if Commons wants to start to host media that are not free in the US because they do not meet the URAA-related provisions, i.e. media that are not free in the US because of the URAA only, then things will become much more complicated for Commons, because it will become necessary to check, for each file, if the publication of that work actually had a copyright notice or not. And, yes, when the WMF statement says that some facts may be difficult to check, that is exactly one of the illogical parts in their statement. Indeed, one of the difficulties about the US law is to check the facts related to the notices and renewals, which is something that does not have to do with the URAA, but has to do with the non-URAA files. Suggesting to ignore *only* the URAA-related sections of the US Copyright Act, while still continuing to apply the rest of the Act, means increasing those difficulties for Commons. It is impractical. So, if the WMF wants to be logical and serious in what they say, the conclusion should be that Commons should stop deleting any media published before 1989 and let the WMF deal with them. That is to say, if Commons is to ignore the URAA-related sections of the US Copyright Act, it might as well ignore the rest of the sections of that Act also, for all works published before 1989. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that what we do with FOP exempted images when we default to the source country and ignore US copyright? Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we often ignore US copyright for foreign FOP images (and the WMF then deletes them when it receives a valid DMCA takedown notice - e.g. wmf:DMCA Oldenburg). The new URAA consensus does seem very similar.
I agree with Asclepias that it does seem to be a logical corollary of the WMF's URAA position that Commons could host pre-1989 US publications until the WMF decides they must be removed (e.g. due to a DMCA takedown notice). We have similar difficulties in establishing the relevant facts about copyright formalities there. --Avenue (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I only meant pre-1989 US publications for which we haven't established that copyright formalities were followed. I think the WMF's position is consistent with deleting US works for which it's clear that the formalities were observed. --Avenue (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we should highlight in these discussions that any uploader, or administrator that knowingly restores a file in this situation may be liable for a future claim of damages. These claims may be significant. From what I understand of US IP law under the DMCA, the WMF would not be liable, in fact their legal defense would be to direct all responsibility to those uploading copyright violations to this website. --Fæ (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand the liability of the uploader. But how an admin become liable? Could you explain further, please? Jee 13:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
An administrator has the choice of whether to knowingly restore a previously challenged file or not, in effect at that point they are an uploader because they are the one releasing the image for public re-use. Note that administrators are not insured, nor explicitly covered for these actions by the WMF. If a file were restored by WMF Office action, then the WMF would be liable rather than anyone else, probably even the original uploader. --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand the WMF responsibly in case of Office actions. But admins are only following the community consensus? If admins are legally responsible for their actions on using their tools; it should be mentioned on the relevant pages. It should not be limited to this case only as it is applicable for every deletion requests from copyright holders where we usually deny the requests. It is applicable to cases like "license revoke" in Flickr uploads as courts may not care our license reviews. Jee 13:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why admins would not be legally responsible for their individual actions, whether URAA-related or not, and it wouldn't hurt to emphasise this elsewhere. However the WMF does not always throw editors to the legal wolves, even when they would legally be able to.[8] --Avenue (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Avenue, for the explanation with example. So it will end up only a few admins (especially who edits under pseudonyms) will dare to undelete those files even if Commons decides to do so? ;) Jee 15:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I actually feel a bit guilty for not saying very much on this before, as someone older and with more life experience than most admins, as I do not believe that admins have been advised properly as to the liability they may be taking on, nor as a community have they asked for independent advice. I understand Avenue's example, however at no point has the Foundation made an unambiguous statement that they would underwrite all costs, or provide directly, legal defense for an Administrator (or potentially an uploader acting in good faith) who may fall foul of this U.S. copyright law. --Fæ (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Why not bring this matter to Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard or any other place you feel more appropriate. It is not fair to leave our admins or license reviewers into troubles. I noticed LX and Stefan4 refused to take adminship due to somewhat similar matters. Jee 16:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Because I've had a gutful of hostile responses from being called a drama queen to much worse, which as you know has destroyed my past RFAs. I'll let someone else be the Aunt Sally on this occasion. --Fæ (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The WMF does have policies that could help cover the legal costs of admins (meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Legal Fees Assistance Program) and even uploaders (meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Legal Policies#Defense of Contributors). These apply only in certain circumstances (the latter policy especially is hedged with several caveats), but could IMO include reasonable actions under the new URAA consensus. I suspect that expecting the WMF to issue blanket assurances and guarantees is unrealistic. --Avenue (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out over at COM:UDEL, there is something fundamentally wrong with the outcome of Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, it is saying that we are going to choose to ignore the law because we don't like it, laws don't work that way, if the WMF don't like the law they need to come up with the solution that works with, and respects, the law, such as a relocating the images to a jurisdiction in which the images are clear of copyright. Every editor has a duty here to make sure all the images hosted are correctly licensed, it is not hard to work out if a non-US work is PD or not due to the URAA, in simple terms if it was in copyright in it's home country on the URAA date, then it highly likely to be copyright in the US. While I see some similarities with the Freedom of Panorama case, there is a very significant difference, there is no examples indicating if a US court would apply a US copyright to an image where there is no copyright in the country the image was taken, if it ever became clear that a US court would apply a copyright to a FoP image then we would have no choice but to review all non-building FoP images. LGA talkedits 23:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The argument that FOP is different doesn't seem to have a very firm basis to me. I'm not aware of a US court decision applying US copyright law to images that qualify for FOP in the foreign country where they were taken, but the German Federal Supreme Court did apply German FOP law to an Austrian photo in de:Hundertwasserentscheidung. Why would US courts behave differently?
Some of the support for the new URAA consensus probably did come from people who simply disliked the URAA. I don't think that's true for everyone, though, and the WMF's statements have not relied simply on dislike of the URAA. They instead argue against deletions based on general concerns that the URAA may apply, and point out the difficulty of establishing that it does. --Avenue (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not trying to defend the FoP position of commons, just explain why it is imo different. I would not like to guess which way a US court would rule, there are arguments on both sides that could swing it, and I suspect that is why the WMF did what they did with the wmf:DMCA Oldenburg notice. But in the case of URAA there is no such legal ambiguity, copyright was restored and I don't buy that line difficulty of establishing that it does. The only time it gets in any way complicated is if the work was published in the US within 30 days of being published in it's source country and then it did not get it's protection restored if the image did not meet the US requirements for labelling. If at any DR it can be shown that the image was published in the US within 30 days of it being published in the source country and the US requirements were not met then the image can be kept, otherwise as per COM:EVID and the COM:PRP we should delete it as being in US copyright. LGA talkedits 01:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite possible that a U.S. court would rule differently than a German court would. Entirely different legal history (common law), precedents, etc. The German decision does make a certain amount of sense but a U.S. court may find a very different angle which also makes sense. So the situation is very different, to me. FoP by definition also involves derivative works, which can make things messier and less predictable (how to balance the rights of each author). With the URAA, in many cases we are talking about straight-up copying works which are near 100% known to be under copyright in the U.S. The complexity of the URAA is really in trying to prove works were not restored; if one were trying to make it simple they could have just unconditionally restored all works to the full term. The U.S. however used almost every bit of room the Berne Convention gave it to avoid restoring copyright in as many works as they could -- making use of the rule of the shorter term (albeit on the one URAA date only), the 30 day "simultaneous publication" bit, etc. As for legality, the EU had just done the very same thing a few months earlier -- they had retroactively restored copyright to immense amounts of material. On the same day the URAA went into effect, the UK photograph copyright went from 50 years from creation to 70pma -- a huge change. The URAA was really not much different; they both were very harmful to our mission, but such action was required by the Berne Convention (and the EU directive for the UK). As for the WMF... really, if they say they have no problem hosting works on Commons with a fair use rationale (e.g. they are for educational use only) provided they have expired in the country of origin, that could be a way to handle it. Projects could then determine if they want to use those or discourage them (maybe they would mostly just be used by the audiences in that country where it really was free). But the WMF has previously forbidden Commons to host works on that basis. I would personally be happy about not having to delete governmental works which have expired in their own country... those always have felt different to me than privately-held copyrights. But to make the policy only apply to works which were restored via the URAA versus ones which never lost U.S. copyright seems a bit arbitrary -- their legal status is identical. The WMF also talks about not wanting to upload "clear copyright violations" but that often is what URAA restored works are. There is admittedly quite a bit of difficulty in determining the status of a work in 1996, given that a lot of the historical copyright laws are tough to find and they often come into play if subsequent laws were not retroactive, but in many cases there really is not much doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Implementing the closure of Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA

The wording of the closure

A large number of users have expressed an opinion on the question raised at Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, and the discussion has been closed on the basis of a community view that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion". Following some edit warring, closure has since been endorsed by one of the crats.

It has to be recognised that there are many problems with the discussion on that page, and with the closure. Firstly, no specific proposition was stated, probably because the page was initially intended as a discussion forum rather than a poll. Second, many users simply !voted without addressing (or understanding) the legal issues involved and the constraints that US law places on the WMF. Third, the closure seems to have been based on the !votes and not on an analysis of the arguments. COM:CRAT states that "A bureaucrat closing a discussion or vote will do so on the basis of policy and if appropriate on the basis of consensus. Bureaucrats are trusted with a measure of discretion in all cases, and discussions/votes are never closed simply on the basis of a vote count", and the same should apply to any closure whether done by a crat or not.

Lastly, there must be room for doubt as to how "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" is to be interpreted. One interpretation would be "A mere mention of URAA is not enough, and each deletion should be dealt with on the basis of a careful analysis of its actual copyright status in the US". That appears to be the view of the WMF. Or, it might mean "If the US copyright in an image derives solely from the terms of URAA we will accept it for hosting even if we are absolutely sure that it is copyright-protected under US law". That appears to be the view of quite a few of those who !voted.

Should the closure be accepted?

In spite of these difficulties, I recommend that we leave the existing closure in place, to avoid edit warring, and now move on to a discussion of how to interpret the community's wishes as best we can. Here is as good a place as any to do that.

In the discussion above, Carl Lindberg and Asclepias have set out very clearly the legal issues involved, and I would encourage editors to read what they say, even though their statements are fairly long and complex. Both are important.

Do we accept US law, or not? Type (a) and (b) decisions

There are essentially two types of decision the community can come to, either: (a) accepting that Commons has to comply with US law, or (b) rejecting that proposition. A decision of type (a) can be worked with in the existing framework, and I will discuss possibilities for that below. A decision of type (b) effectively rejects the whole of the Wikimedia movement's structure, and the role and geographic location of the WMF (which has to comply with US law whether it likes it or not). Such a decision may be intellectually justifiable for a number of reasons (eg to encourage progress towards a more federal-type structure, to put increased pressure politicians in the US to change the law and so on) but none of those reasons are really addressable within Commons as it stands at the moment.

Given the existing structures, the result of a type (b) decision would I think inevitably be that the WMF has to impose a solution, to protect itself from legal challenges and potentially unlimited damages in the US. The community may decide that that is the 'best' solution for us, but I would suggest that in any event we continue to explore type (a) solutions since anything we can come up with ourselves is likely to be a batter fit to our own wishes than anything the WMF may feel forced to impose.

A possible way forward, assuming compliance with US law is agreed

So, turning now to type (a) decisions, it might be useful to address this step by step, so that editors can respond with reference to a numbered sequence:

1. This discussion so far has focussed on URAA. The decision "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" might be a starting point for a discussion of ways in which we might keep URAA files based on the complexity of the statute and some uncertainty in the actual legal position. Unfortunately, as has been well discussed above, that does not make very much sense. Although there are indeed some complex requirements, such as whether the image was published in the US within 30 days, lack of notice, failure to renew copyright and so on, none of those helps much since if the requirements were met the URAA applies so the file is copyright; if they were not met the file in most cases never went into the public domain at all and remains copyright-protected under the general law. The real problem is not the URAA itself, but the fact that the US does not apply the rule of the shorter term, and maintains US copyright even where copyright has expired in the source country.

2. There are other problematic situations where the copyright subsists (according to US law) when it does not elsewhere. One big issue is sculptures that enjoy freedom of panorama in their home country, where they are located, but which are considered copyright-protected under US law. I can't find the case now, but if I remember rightly the WMF has already deleted at least one file following a DMCA takedown notice relating to a photo taken outside the US. So this is a live issue as well.

2. To comply with US law, Commons is forced to delete media where either we have 'actual knowledge' of (US copyright) infringement or where WMF receives a valid DMCA takedown notice: see the WMF board statement.

3. There is nothing we can do about DMCA takedowns, but we can potentially modify our policies to bring in the huge range of material where our knowledge of the copyright position currently falls somewhere between "actual knowledge of infringement" and "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file" (the Precautionary Principle policy).

4. The Precautionary Principle has, over the years, been interpreted increasingly strictly, which has excluded large swathes of material from Commons, generally on the basis that we want so far as possible to protect our re-users. I feel some personal responsibility for this, as I was the editor who first enunciated the principle that subsequently became enshrined in policy. But I never dreamt that practice would drift as far as is has away from a reasonable inclusionism towards the present position where we pretty well exclude everything unless we can be absolutely sure there can be no possible problem.

5. With a fundamental re-evaluation of the Precautionary Principle, and perhaps moving it much closer to the allowable limit of "actual knowledge" I suspect that we would be able to find a way to keep most of the currently-problematic URAA images, as well as sidestepping what will probably quite soon be a similar community bust-up when significant numbers of Freedom of Panorama images are put up for deletion. We will have to accept as a penalty for that that some of our files may not be so easily reusable, especially for users in the US, but we can ameliorate that by using suitable warning tags.

6. We will need before we go too deeply into the detail a greater understanding of what the true limits of "actual knowledge" are, as applied by the US courts. I have asked WMF legal if they could assist us with some research on that, to guide our discussions.

If this seems like a sensible approach, I would recommend:

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete this guy's uploads

A dozen pictures of the same guy, out of scope. Looking at the talk page shows a history of the same... Palosirkka (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Journal license

See last section here.[9] Anyone know which specific license this[10] covers? And has the specific license for these[11] images been arbitrarily chosen? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know? It will decide whether images already uploaded needs to get deleted, or if we can upload lots of new images from those journals. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
What is the issue? It says "Creative Commons Attribution" license. It doesn't specify a version but it does name the license -- that is CC-BY. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that it does not specify whether it is commercial or non-commercial, which is pretty important to us. And I can't find a more specific description on those pages. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
"Creative Commons Attribution" is the full name of the license. That is the CC-BY license. It is not the CC-BY-NC license, nor the CC-BY-SA, nor the CC-BY-SA-NC. If something just said "Creative Commons license" yes that is a problem, but not "Creative Commons Attribution" -- that is specific. The article you linked to even mentions that -- According to this license, Springer will not reserve any exclusive commercial rights. It would help if they gave the version number of course, but maybe assume 3.0. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, as another example, see the paper here:[12] At the bottom it says "All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License" But when one looks at the website of the journal[13], it says: "All content of the journal, except where identified, is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type BY-NC." To me, it looks like the latter specifies which exact license is meant, not that they are two different ones, and I fear it is the same with the Chinese one. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
And it's possible those two statements are for different scopes. At first blush those are referring to two different journals. The link would help, but they should specify "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial" for the other one. Anyways, your journal mentions joining with Springer, and their page is pretty clear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, that's what I was looking for. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio suspected

~Hello every one, I think that this user has imported pictures that he did not take because they are from news and photo agencies.

I don't know how to do. Could you help ? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Orteilles Thanks. 2A01:E35:243A:FAF0:216:CBFF:FEA7:C51A 16:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I marked those files with the template:no source, this way he has a week to correct the situation. You can also put the template:copyvio, which sends the file to the category:Copyright violations. --SamuelFreli (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

How to list a suspected copyright violation for deletion?

Hello,

I believe File:ElephantaMap.jpg is a copyright violation because it is listed by User talk:Daarznieks as his "own work" but it can be found at www.wondermondo.com, a site which has a copyright notice: "© 1999-2013 Commonwheel Artists Co-op • 102 Cañon Avenue, Manitou Springs, CO 80829 719-685-1008 • 1-877-685-1008 • f 719-685-0241".

I couldn't figure out how to list it for a deletion request.

Thanks in advance for any help! Parabolooidal (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind! I see that it's licensed as "Elephanta Caves, map. Gatis Pāvils, CC-BY-SA-3.0" Very sorry for bothering you. Parabolooidal (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
So if it's correctly licensed, why did it get deleted? - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Automated patrol against reuploading copyvios

A file gets deleted for copyvio or missing permissions and a user uploads again the same file or a file with same (similar) name. This should be detected to help weeding out the bad apples. Here's one example of somebody doing this, three times, no less. User talk:Dotsuke There are probably hundreds of people doing this. Of course it might also be worth trying to find out why do they do it, perhaps they don't understand the messages or perhaps they just don't care. Just makes me mad that people upload copyvios and claim they're under a nice license (required by commons) and this can cause innocent people to reuse the images and thus also become copyright infringers with best intents and no idea. Palosirkka (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. What on earth can possibly motivate these people? Perhaps they're just incredibly immature with no life worth speaking of, the poor sods? They certainly need to grow up, that's for sure!! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I notice there's a sea of yellow spunk templates on your Talk page. Just a "heads"-up that might be something you need to deal with. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of picture in Russian book

How can I get copyright of a picture taken 1870 in a Russian book published 1934 ? I downloaded the picture from the site http://shpl.dlibrary.org/ru/nodes/6898-klyachko-samuil-semen-lvovich#page/1/mode/grid/zoom/1 PReiniger

  • Also at here but I suspect it's the same resolution.
Your best bet would be just to upload it to Commons and pretend you took it yourself with a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} template. This is what I do, and probably no one will ever notice because Commons admins can't usually cope with Sanskrit I find ...
If you're going to go all legal on it, you might find yourself in real trouble because anything after around about Куликовская битва is picked up and agonized (how my spell checker corrected "onanized", which may well be the correct medical term for all I know) to death by people living in places like Sweden wherever that actually is (seriously, where is that actually? just curious) Because 1870 ... the photographer could have been 20 years old dying aged 100 in 1950 and his estate probably having rights until 2020 by which time Mad Vlad the Bad and Sad will have nuked us all anyway.
Hope this helps. Even ru doesn't have an article on Самуил Львович Клячко BTW. I'm genuinely curious and let me know how you get on. (Seriously, get in touch if you nedd more help :)) Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Erm ... I may been overdoing the Chardonnay midnight hours. Can't really remember. Life seemed so bright and hopeful until I started uploading to Commons, oh well .... This is a useful source for Commons copyright tags. I should think {{PD-old-100}} with {{PD-1923}} for the US should do. The presumption would be it was indeed published before 1923 (1909 if not in English), but if someone picks up on it I'm afraid you might be in for a hard time. Happily most of us have better things to do with our life, or at least enjoyable. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
1909 is not relevant; it's a disputed rule in US jurisprudence, it's wrong, and I've never seen Commons delete anything because of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, I'm just quoting what I understand is US case law. But then I'm just an often drunk Commons editor, not even an often drunk Commons administrator, so whom am I to consumate the law (whatever)? Still I do agree and defer :) Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siboga expedition exploration dry riverbed.jpg

Hi everyone! I would love to hear your opinion on Siboga_expedition_exploration_dry_riverbed.jpg which has been nominated for deletion, and is an example case for the issues I encounter in my Wikipedian in Residence project. My own response can be found on the Deletion Requests page. Appreciate your advice. Many thanks in advance! Spinster (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (Wikipedian in Residence, project Expedition Wikipedia)

Excellent image. Thanks for that. It would help in future if you gave the exact source. In this case [14]. Nominating editor probably suffers a bit from that agonism problem I rather frequently mention here which stops people from appreciating things they see properly (strictly my theory and it's copyright to me incidentally, just warning certain people in advance)
The crux is publication date. Relevant law is Article 38 of the Copyright Act 1912 (Netherlands):
Article 38
1. The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt shall expire 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public.
2. The same shall apply to works of which a public institution, association, foundation or company is deemed the author, unless the natural person who created the work is indicated as the author on or in copies of the work which have been communicated to the public.
3. If the author discloses his identity prior to the end of the term referred to in paragraph 1, the duration of the copyright in the work concerned shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of article 37.
So you have to show it was published before 1944. "Publication" is quite a broad concept I gather from experts. Being available for copying constitutes publication is an opinion I've seen, so that would include being deposited in an archive available to the general public, as I presume was the case for the Siboga expedition archive deposited in the Artis Library, Amsterdam (in which incidentlly I have spent many a pleasant hour perfecting my theories on agonism).
Good luck. I'll add this to the discussion and make some additions to the file. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Publication is quite a complex concept, and was much broader in pre-1978 US law then post, and I believe later US law matches law in other countries better. In the US, w:Salinger v. Random House says that being in an archive means nothing without permission of the copyright holder.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for that. I'll have a look. The situation in Holland might be a little different. Everyone knows the Dutch love their museums, but their archives are an equal treasure. As always I defer to the experts here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Doubts about signatures of Italian people

I have uploaded the signature of Matteo Renzi; in my opinion it is okay but since the guidelines about public domain signatures do not say anything about Italy, I would ask you whether it is acceptable or not on Commons.--Carnby (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see Silvio Berlusconi has been up there a while on {{PD-ineligible}}, so looks a safe bet. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted files

Dear Specialists of WikiCommons, sorry to trouble You, and bad English.

Deleted files

I am not an expert in the field of copyright, and therefore appealed to the experts of the organization that developed the documents I have translated these documents and put them in the wiki after receiving permission from NIOSH and CDC. NIOSH and CDC experts were allowed to use these documents, and noted that they are public domain. Their letters are placed below.

Question:

1. If placing translations of documents requires additional authorization, how I should formulate a request for such permission to the organization, that developed the documents?

2. If the document is in the public domain and may be placed wiki, is "the public domain" images, that is posted in this document ( the "source" document ) ?

3. If the picture painted by me completely, and loaded to Commons, how to load the license that have not deleted it as it have been done, for example, with images in the article Респиратор?

4. If I am the author of articles published in journals Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, (Kaptsov VA, et al Prevention of occupational diseases by using masks / / Hygiene and sanitation. - M: Medicine , 2013. - № 3

Kirillov WF Bunch AA, AB Chirkin For personal respiratory protection of workers (review) / / FGBI "Institute of Industrial Medicine" of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Occupational Medicine and Industrial Ecology. - Moscow, 2013. - № 4. - P. 25-31),

how to specify the license - they would not be removed?

Thank You. Alexander Chirkin AlexChirkin (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

answer from NIOSH 10.06.13

Thank you for your inquiry to CDC-INFO. In response to your request for information on reuse of CDC.gov website content, we can provide you with the following information.

General text information, publications available for download, and graphs developed by CDC and found on the CDC website are works of the U.S. government and are in the public domain. These materials are meant for public use and are not subject to copyright laws. Permission is not required for use of public domain items. But, CDC does ask that you credit the original institution and contributor, when known, whenever the item is used in publicly distributed media.

You are also free to adapt and revise these materials, provided the information is distributed free of cost; however, you must remove the CDC name and logo if changes are made. Additionally, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10, no person may, for a fee, reproduce, reprint, or distribute any item consisting of a form, application, or other publication of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) unless such person has obtained specific, written authorization to do so. Therefore, if you wish to sell CDC materials presented on the CDC website, you must first obtain permission from CDC.

You may also find information on the CDC website that is owned or created by others, including copyrighted materials and other materials sponsored by private companies or nongovernment organizations. Those other parties retain all rights to publish or reproduce those documents or to allow others to do so, in accordance with 17 U.S.C. Sections 106?120. Copyrighted materials included on the CDC website were used with the permission of the copyright holder and are not in the public domain; such materials remain the property of their respective owners or creators and should not be reproduced or otherwise used.

Most images found in the CDC Public Health Image Library (PHIL) are royalty-free and available for personal, professional, and educational use in electronic or print media, with appropriate citation. Please credit CDC and the individual photographer if his or her name is given. If you?re using the images in electronic media, please link back to the PHIL site.

Images other than those in the PHIL may have been licensed for use by CDC from a stock photography service, and the licensing vendor may prohibit republication, retransmission, reproduction, or other use of the images. You may submit questions about reuse of specific images via the Contact Us link on the CDC website.

answer from NIOSH 01.02.2012

Mr. Chirkin,

Mr. Jeffrey Peterson is on holiday and asked that I respond to your question concerning the use of the NIOSH document on TB Protection.

This document may be used as you requested as this document is what we call, in the Public Domain. Public Domain means that the document has been released to the public without any restrictions to use, reproduction or distribution.

The documents may be translated as you have shown in your e-mail attachment. Unfortunately NIOSH cannot be of any assistance in performing or reviewing a translation as NIOSH does not have these types of resources available.

Any other questions, please contact me.

Tom Pouchot

General Engineer

NIOSH, NPPTL

Technology Evaluation Branch

Phone: 412-386-4036

answer from NIOSH 07.10.2011

Dear Alexander,

Thank you for your inquiry to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC has forwarded your inquiry to our offices at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) located in Cincinnati, Ohio. NIOSH is an Institute within the CDC and is responsible for conducting research and making recommendations for the prevention of work-related injury and illnesses.

Both the following NIOSH publications are in the public domain and can be used by anyone for training Industrial Hygienists on respirator selection: 1) http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-100/default.html 2) http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/87-116/

The above documents provide a basic understanding of respirator selection. However, the NPG (NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards) contains respirator recommendations for almost 700 compounds. To access this document, please click on the following link: www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg. If you need any assistance in understanding these recommendations, please contact one of the following people: 1) Tom Pouchot ++@cdc.gov 2) Jeff Peterson ++@cdc.gov 3) Robert Stein ++@cdc.gov 4) Vance Kochenderfer ++@cdc.gov

I am not sure if you can post Russian translations of NIOSH Publications on NIOSH's website. You may want to email Rolland Berryann [++@cdc.gov] regarding this.

NOTE: Respirator workplace protection factors are called Assigned Protection Factors (APFs) and are determined by OSHA. Please check the following link: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=18846


Feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely, Dale

Dale Camper, BA Technical Information Specialist Information Resources and Dissemination Branch Education and Information Division National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexChirkin (talk • contribs)

✓ Done I informed the user about OTRS precedure. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

New RFC on changing the Precautionary principle to tackle the URAA problem

I have opened an RFC on a proposal to relax the scope of the Precautionary Principle policy to allow Commons to host more of the locally public domain files that are being deleted because of the US URAA law, and also to keep more photos that have freedom of panorama in their home country but which might be copyright-protected in the US.

Put simply, do you agree that Commons should aim to host more files that are public domain in their home country even if they *might* still be copyright-protected in the US?

Please contribute to the poll and discussion at that is starting now at Commons:Review of Precautionary principle. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Struggling with the copyright tags

The book is called Extinct animals (1905) by Edwin Ray Lankester (dies 1929), and i want to uploud the photos of the Okapi in pp.163–165. Someone has told me that the license should be "PD-art-two|PD-old|PD-1923", but the uploud wizard deny it. --Dorhi (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Upload Wizard is not so much a wizard as an ill-tempered witch doctor. He's fussy about uppercase vs. lowercase letters and doesn't follow redirects like {{PD-art-two}}, so you need to use {{PD-Art-two|PD-old|PD-1923}} instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Why there is a warning sign in the pages?

--Dorhi (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any warning sign. License looks fine now. Yann (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a little warning sign in the licence templates where it says that any media must be out of copyright in the US and the country of origin. Dorhi, I have now simplified the licence tags of your uploads with a combined message using {{PD/1923}}. De728631 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, Edwin Ray Lankester is the author of the text of this book, not of the illustrations/photos (which seem to come from various sources). So, some photos may be still protected in the United Kingdom if their creator died less than 70 years ago, which is possible. However, though the archive.org page https://archive.org/details/extinctanimals1905lank given as a source in the image descriptions has "London, A. Constable & co., ltd." as the publisher, the actual title page of the scan displayed at archive.org says "New York : Henry Holt and Company". So I'm not sure whether UK law matters in this case - and as a US publication before 1923, it would be PD in any case in the US. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

About File:Wikipedia-The Missing Manual 0115.png

Is the picture right here? I mean it include Wikipedia's logo which is non-free. Please check it. Rhong Fu Talk 00:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with signing an event photography agreement

I was really looking forward to contributing images I will be taking at the 2014 IIHF Ice Hockey U18 World Championship tournament to Wikimedia Commons. Now the organizers are asking me to sign this Event Photography Agreement: https://i.imgur.com/yGCE5Rk.png I have to sign it because I'm being sent there by my employer to take photos. Do you see any way for me to be able to contribute images to Wikimedia Commons without breaking the agreement? I see the limitations on commercial use as the main problem with regards to Wikimedia Commons. --Teevee (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The wording seems to be pretty clear, if you do sign it... I wouldn't hold my breath, but have you considered asking them to put in a CC-BY-SA exemption for you, and pointing them to your other ice hockey pictures? They may decide that it falls outside of the spirit of what they want to prohibit, especially because you often use the "Share-Alike" clause which means it's doubtful (admittedly not prohibited) that people will use it for advertising. Storkk (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Did your employee send you directly to take photos? Would this fall under "work for hire" copyright rules? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Carlo Franzinetti e Bruno Pontecorvo.jpg

I'm trying to clean up a few bad PD templates... This file's {{PD-because}} rationale is "Too old and too commonly published", with no indication of age. This image is probably {{PD-Italy}} and {{PD-1996}}, because Pontecorvo defected to the Soviet Union in 1950, and I can find no evidence that Franzinetti visited the Soviet Union... however I cannot find a firm date for the picture. Can anyone else? Storkk (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Pontecorvo visited Italy in 1978 and in later years. On this photo, he looks older than 37 (his age in 1950) and maybe younger than 65 (his age in 1978). For what it's worth, the website of the Science Academy of Torino seems to be saying circa 1970 [15]. You can also compare with photos at [16], some of which are from his 1978 visit. Many of those photos there are from international press agencies, and were published not necessarily only in Italy. Anyway, to use the PD-Italy template on a file, one must provide credible evidence that the photo was first published in Italy. The uploader of this file did not provide the source nor any information about the publication history. I agree that his PD-because rationale is not valid and does not provide any information. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

PD status of Swiss road signs

Would Swiss road signs (see for example Category:Diagrams of road signs of Switzerland, information symbols) fall into {{PD-Switzerland-official}}? I've raised it on the template talk page, but wanted to ask here since that namespace is often extremely low traffic. Specifically, I can't see how they fit into the wording on {{PD-Switzerland-official}}, and was hoping that that wording could be updated if they are in fact PD. Storkk (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein has replied in the affirmative. Seems convincing enough to me. Thanks! Storkk (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Australian Aboriginal Flag

I noticed that this image was kept while the remainder at Category:Australian_Aboriginal_flag_related_deletion_requests were deleted. I'm curious as to why considering there is clear evidence that the flag in the image is under copyright. There was no reason given by the person who closed the debate as to why it was kept. Thanks, The Haz talk 00:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree Yann's closure rationale wasn't explicit, but the bulk of the "Keep" !votes in that discussion argued that we could keep the photo because it wasn't protected by copyright in Israel and (at least implicitly) that Israel was the source country for this image. Yes, it would be under copyright in Australia, but the general consensus seemed to be that this was irrelevant here (with dissent from cmadler). --Avenue (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
If that's true then why was the SVG of the flag deleted? It also wasn't made in Australia. The Haz talk 13:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between making an SVG version of an Australian flag design, and taking a photo of that flag being exhibited in Israel. From those two DRs, it seems that we considered the source countries of the resulting files are Australia and Israel respectively. I'm not sure I agree, but I can see why people might think so. The DRs also took place almost six years apart, so perfect consistency may be too much to expect. --Avenue (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Venezuelan protest photos

On the 2014 Venezuelan protests article on Wikipedia, there were multiple photos added without validation of licensing.

Here are the files I have found:

I would like for these to be looked at since the sources do not provide specific information about licensing/--Zfigueroa (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

But wait, there's more!

Please have someone look at these.--Zfigueroa (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status of photo from US National Park Service List of Classified Structures and the NPS Office of Land, Resources, & Planning

This question concerns a photo from Yosemite National Park and whether the photo can be treated as out of copyright (PD-USGov-NPS). The photo can be found here and appears to be related to the US National Park Service Office of Land, Resources, & Planning. It has been said that the NPS List of Classified Structures was developed by Project Performance Company on the IT side of things. --Gazebo (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of the NRHP photographs were submitted by third parties with the application, but as these particular ones seem to be photos of NPS-administered buildings, it would stand to reason they were taken by NPS employees, so yes I think we can assume that. The fact the database was developed by another company would not affect the status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical marker – Florida Heritage Site

I am considering uploading a photograph of a historical marker describing a Florida Heritage Site, similar to File:Hobe Sound FL Jonathan Dickinson SP Camp Murphy marker01.jpg (picking one random example). The photograph would be taken by me, so I can release it under an appropriate license. However, my question: shouldn't the file page also deal with the copyright status of the sign itself? These signs include a logo that appears to be complex enough to be copyrightable – a stylized colonnade where the columns are actually palm trees. This logo appears to belong to the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. So my argument is that the sign is PD, as a work created by a government unit of the State of Florida (see Template:PD-FLGov). But I should state this explicitly on the file page, shouldn't I? In which case, I could use wording very similar to Template:PD-FLGov; although not that exact template, as it refers to "this file", and the photograph is not the work of the state government. I have browsed several images in sub-categories of Category:Historical markers in Florida, but I can't find an example where the copyright status of the sign has been mentioned. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. On any derivative work there are two copyrights, both of which must be dealt with. On the author line of the description, you list "Author: Wdchk (photo), Division of Historical Resources (text)" and show two entries in the licensing section, in this fashion: File:Auguste_Rodin_signature.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

PD-BR-URAAanon

Hi, could please someone review if the draft that I've made on Template:PD-BR-URAAanon is ok on licensing terms or if additional explanations are needed? The intended usage is to give additional licensing info on templates such as {{PD-scan}}. Many thanks, Lugusto • ※ 05:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, Art. 112 refers only to pma issues increasing 60pma to 70pma for works which were NOT in PD when legislation changed in 1998. For all other works which were already in PD when legislation changed = {{PD-BR-1937}} (1937 + 60 = 1997). For anonymous and pseudonymous works which were NOT in PD when legislation changed in 1998 --> 70 years --> Art. 43. Será de setenta anos o prazo de proteção aos direitos patrimoniais sobre as obras anônimas ou pseudônimas, contado de 1° de janeiro do ano imediatamente posterior ao da primeira publicação = {{PD-Brazil-media}}. In other words: All audiovisual and photographic works published for the 1st time in Brazil since January 1, 1937 are URAA-affected. Or did I miss something? Gunnex (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The URAA would affect anything still under copyright on January 1, 1996 in Brazil, which would seem to be: photographs, films, phonograms, and applied art created in 1936 or later; other types of works where the author died 1936 or later, or other types of anonymous works which were published 1936 or later. When it comes to the URAA, the template would not be useful for photographs, phonograms, films, or works of applied art (i.e. the vast majority of uploaded works), since in 1996 those were based on the date of creation and the identity of the author did not matter, so the anonymous works clause is moot. For other types of works (e.g. if uploading scans of public domain books) then (if anonymous) it would have needed to be published before 1936 to be PD in both the U.S. and Brazil. I would specify on the tag that it only applies to works which are not phonograms, photographs, or films. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've rewrote the template. Please take a look on this new version. Should it be better named than PD-BR-URAAanon?
Also, there is any name suggestion to create a new template that tags most easy some scan than {{PD-old-70}}<br/>{{PD-scan|PD-1996|country=Brazil|date=January 1, 1996}} (simply using {{PD-scan|newname}} instead of the previous code)?
Yep, I'm going to retag all book scans from pt.wikisource. There isn't so much until now, so doing it will not be very time consuming.
Many thanks, Lugusto • ※ 19:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
{{PD-BR-URAAanon}} --> "published prior to 1 January 1936" --> prior to 1 January 1937 + published --> "finished" (or better: "created"). Especially for wikisource {{PD-BrazilGov}} ((...) text of a treaty, convention, law, decree, regulation, judicial decision, or other official enactment) might be relevant. Gunnex (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Gunnex. Posthumous works falls in public domain on Brazil in conjunction of published works; I've reworded the template again. Thanks also for pointing {{PD-BrazilGov}}, this is already on my to do list on copyright reviews =) (We already have some uploaded locally in a very similar local template). Lugusto • ※ 00:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
For the URAA, it would be 1936, not 1937. Something (of this type of work) published in 1936 would have still been under copyright on January 1, 1996 (it would not have expired until January 1997), thus its U.S. copyright would have been restored by the URAA to run for a further 35 years (then 15 but later extended) though its Brazilian copyright expired a year later. It sounds like the point of the tag was to highlight works which also avoided URAA restoration which works published in 1936 would not have. Also, it is published, not finished (finished or probably better "completed" is the wording for photographs, films, phonograms but this tag is not for those since it seems to be specifically for anonymous works). I'm not sure how an anonymous work could be "posthumous" since you'd have to know the date of death of the author for that. PD-BR-anon-URAA or PD-Brazil-anon-URAA might be better names for the tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Insignia Q

There's a question whether the insignia here are (c) vios or free. I'd like some more community input. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ghanaian FOP

This DR concerns the interpretation of Ghanaian law concerning Freedom of Panorama. There may be a different interpretation possible, and we might need to update COM:FOP#Ghana if my understanding is incorrect. Any input would be appreciated. Storkk (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

File:IFK Landskrona football club around 1910.JPG,

I have now done as information states (I hope). The copyright rules related to old Swedish photos (until 1967), have I preaviously been enlightened about here at Wikimedia. In general all pictures that has been bublished in Sweden before 1967 is public domain. This I learned some years ago. However someone (or something ?) seems to dislike this old photo, which have caused me problems. The shot is obviously around 100 years old, and has been published in Sweden before 1967. So it shouldn't be a problem. I wonder if the information now is good enough. Any help would be appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I (and for the avoidance of doubt, I'm a someone, not a something – and I also speak Swedish in case you prefer that) tagged File:IFK Landskrona football club around 1910.JPG as missing valid source information, because I found your claim that this photo was your own work rather unlikely. You've now changed the source to "Town Museum of Landskrona, Scania, Sweden. 'Memory Bank'", which I suppose is more credible, although I still don't know how to verify that. Did you download the photo, or scan it from a physical copy at the museum, or something else?
You're also claiming on the file description page that you are the copyright holder of the photo and that it is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike copyright license. This contradicts your other statement that the photo is in the public domain. If something is in the public domain, it means it is not protected by copyright. It cannot have a copyright holder or be the subject of a copyright license. I'm guessing the tag you're looking for is {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, but that tag still has to be accompanied by source information that others could use to verify the origin of the photo to confirm that the {{PD-Sweden-photo}} actually applies. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I need help with cc licence

Hello,

I am trying to understand how to get my image ready for wikipedia. I've gone here: https://creativecommons.org/choose/ to try to get a licence? But I don't really understand what to do after I fill everything out. I just uploaded a photo on to wikipedia for Tony Penikett. I actually work for him and we own the picture. I've put it up before but then it got brought down... I'm not really sure (even after reading instructions) what to do. Can someone give me a step by step break down so I can do this properly and have the photo stay up!

Thank you Unsigned comment by User:Jmlee28 18:02, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)

The question is not who you work for or that your employer said it's ok; the question is who took the actual image. You can't license the work of someone else. It's the photographer who needs to either upload the image and license it, or the photographer needs to send an email to OTRS to say it's ok that you are uploading their (the photographer's) work. If you are uploading work that belongs to another person without that person's permission, it will most likely get tagged/removed again. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: If the employer explicitly commissioned the photo-shoot, the file could fall under work for hire copyright rules, in which case copyright ownership would transfer to the employer, presumably Tony Penikett.
@Jmlee28: If you or Tony Penikett wish to upload to Wikipedia, you must explicitly release the photograph under one of the free licenses available on Wikimedia Commons. These licenses allow anyone to use your work for any purpose, including modification to create derivative works and selling your work for commercial purposes; in short we ask that you offer your images in the greatest freedom possible to the world. If you have also previously published the images, say on a different website or under a different copyright license, you must also assert that you are the copyright holder by emailing the OTRS team, and fill out this form in its entirety. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Albanian copyright law & images of Enver Hoxha, et. al.

Anyone with expertise on Albanian copyright law may want to weigh in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:PPSH Fifth Congress 1966.jpg. In any event, it looks like {{PD-Albania}} might need an update. - Jmabel ! talk 00:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

News in French copyright law

Hi,

An interesting news in French copyright law: the transcription of an old document does not create a new copyright. See [17] (French). Regards, Yann (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

For the purpose of Wikisource et al, would translation as well as transcription be ineligible for copyright? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Translations are eligible for copyright, but simple transcriptions are not. What's even more interesting are the comments by a known lawyer that this has wider implications, i.e. that reproductions of 2D documents are also not eligible for a new copyright. This concerns the claim by many French institutions, including the National Library (Gallica), from which we import a lot of scans. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Statue of Joseph Pulitzer (Fort Jay, New York).jpg

The above file was uploaded to help illustrate the recent Pulitzer prizes. However, I am not assured that this would be free. The photographer's CC license from Flickr is fine, but the image is of a statue on a public place in the US, where there is no FOP. My google-fu is failing me to find when and whom made the statue, but as often for these, it was likely installed after Pulitzer's death (1911). For it to be free, the creator (who I cannot find either) would have had to died before 1924 (90+life). Given this narrow 13 year range, I would suspect that its a good chance this statue is still under copyright, making this image non-free. --Masem (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The sculptor is Phillip Ratner. The statue is part of a group first installed in 1982. [18], [19] Couldn't find the year of birth of the sculptor but the NYT article hints at sometime circa 1932-1942. Couldn't find a year of death. Was alive in 2011. [20] Probably still alive. The copyright of a statue installed, but not otherwise published, in 1982 in the U.S. would probably not be considered expired per previous discussions on Commons. I'm curious from where comes the notion of life+90? Sidenote: The plaque of the statue is readable on File:NYC Liberty Island Pulitzer.JPG, before it gets deleted too. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I meant life+70, got my copyright terms mixed up. Irregardless, you've identified the sculptor so even if we assume he died in 2011, this is still under copyright and the photo being a derivative work should be deleted. --Masem (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yup. He was still alive on January 17, 2014 according to [21]. He was born in 1937, before July 7. [22][23]. Lupo 11:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As an aside, U.S. statues placed in public before 1978 could be PD-US-no_notice if it lacked a copyright notice, and ones installed before 1964 needed to have their copyright renewed even if it did have a notice -- placing permanently in public was basically considered publication. The definition of publication changed in 1978, after which PD-US-no_notice becomes much harder to prove for statues, so this one is likely not PD. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Just mentioning since a 70pma term would not apply for a U.S. work published before 1978, which your original question implied it might, not that it affects this one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Copyright help regarding File:Ohio School for the Deaf, 1930 Class Picture.jpg

(moved from Commons:Helpdesk)

I came into possession of this picture when my Grandmother passed away in 1997. The photograph was taken in 1930 (84 years ago). Last year, I had the photo scanned at a high resolution so that I could have a digital copy and share with my family as a part of our family tree.

I did see the photography company's name (American Photograph Company) listed in the bottom right. However, I was not able to determine if the company still existed. I am also sure that anyone involved with the company is no longer alive.

Thus, I was not sure what copyright to use. Chances are that the paper copy that I have is the only one in existence. My great-uncle took great care to preserve it.

Any help/advice you can give is much appreciated.

Jmabel believes that I could use {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I wanted to post here to confirm before updating the pic.

--Elmorejr (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • That sure looks like a copy distributed at the time. If there is no copyright notice on the back, it probably qualifies for PD-US-no_notice as well. Is the back entirely blank? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Owner’s permission sufficient?

I asked the owner of http://www.machadoink.com/Schools.htm for permission to use a photograph from her website in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Augustine%27s_College,_Canterbury. She gave this reply. "All of the photographs on my site I actually own the originals of. It's taken me a long time to build my collection, so I'd rather not have them posted all over the internet. If it's only one photo for an article you are writing, it's fine with credit to my site. If you want to post a link to the page address for St Augustines on my site that is also ok, so they can go there to see all the photos." My question: does this permission allow uploading the photo to Wiki? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vejlefjord Vejlefjord (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If by "Wiki", you mean Wikimedia Commons and not some other website using wiki technology, then no. From the introduction to Commons:Licensing:

Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose.

All you've gotten permission for is for you (you're not anyone) to use it for the specific purpose of including it in one article (which is not any purpose). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
No, this permission is not suitable here: First, with regard to copyright, it doesn't matter who the owner of the physical copy is, even if it's a photograph's original and only copy. Collectors gain no copyright whatsoever just by acquiring a physical copy - so, if this is about a photograph that is still protected by copyright, you would need the permission of the actual copyright owner, i.e. the photographer, the photographer's heirs, or someone the photographer has explicitly transferred the rights to. In case the website owner actually has formally acquired the copyright on the photograph in question, then she would be able to release it under a free license as required here, of course. But this she apparently hasn't done - giving you permission to use the photograph in a specific article isn't a free license. - However, looking at the website, it contains very old as well as more recent photographs (and some old engravings). Some of the old engravings and photographs might be out ouf copyright anyway, so could maybe be used as public domain without needing a permission (but maybe not in the UK if the scans have been improved in some way, see here). Gestumblindi (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Watermark of copyright on files

Hello,

I think there is a problem with the uploads of the user Cthieblin : all her files have a watermark. For some of them it's the name that seem to correspond to the account (Catherine Thieblin), and for others it's a public organism. But all the files are about paintings or photography that seem in the public domain.

Why should be done ? Deleting the files or removing the watermark ?

--89.91.79.161 08:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, these images are not attributed properly, and the license is wrong. I created a DR to discuss this. Thanks for notifying. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with validity of Olan Mills photograph release

I'm assisting User:Mansoor Ijaz with the straightening up of an image used in the article about his father on en.wiki: File:MujaddidAhmedIjaz1987.jpg. It's been already deleted. Mr. Ijaz contacted Olan Mills/Lifetouch and they gave him a form to fill. It has a section called Limited Purpose for Use of Portrait that must be filled out, followed by a standard no-indemnity clause. At the bottom there's a section called Limited Copyright Release that reads In consderation of the request and indemnification provided by the Requesting Party, Lifetouch gives permission to use the Image(s) described on this Request for the limited purpose indicated above. My feeling is that the use of "limited" here would clash with CC-by-SA, even if the purpose reads "Wikimedia Commons CC-by-SA" - assuming that they would even accept it. Surely we've seen this type of thing before.... is this a valid release for a photograph? If it matters, Mr. Ijaz Sr. passed in 1992. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Limited" could mean a few things, "limited purpose" might restrict the purposes for using such images and therefore is contrary to Commons philosophy, but I read "limited copyright release" to mean only a limited quantity of copies (e.g. low-res versions) of such images will be released under CC-BY-SA, while retaining "All Rights Reserved" for other copies. I think we should make sure Olan Mills understands the implications of the CC-BY-SA license, that they won't frivolously go after our end reusers who regularly import, and also modify, images from Commons. (With WMF lawyers they'll surely never sue us, but re-users might be at risk.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@TeleComNasSprVen: Thank you. We'll see what they say, in the meantime there's another image free from issues that could be used. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Coronation of King George VI.jpg

This image has been added to a Wikipedia article that I started. The source is The Royal Collection Trust - Coronation of King George VI (1895-1952) and is a copy of a painting completed in 1938. The webpage clearly states "Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2014". Seems a bit dubious to me that it's "in the public domain". Your expert opinion would be gratefully received. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

2032 will be the 70th year after the death of the artist when it will fall into the public domain unless the UK still claims new copyright over slavish copies of artworks. Ww2censor (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coronation of King George VI.jpg.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both very much. I'll revert to the previous image in the WP article. Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

Suspected image Universecolor.jpg

This image has a watermark saying © Paul Bird 2011 which does not correspond to the uploader name.--Carnby (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

On some of his other uploads such as File:Quintic_fractal.jpg the real author is linked to the username. Are there versions on the internet which pre-date the uploads here? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, here. There's also an e-mail address in the PDF.--Carnby (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte Salomon: PD status?

I would like to transfer some of the fair-use images presently illustrating the German artist Charlotte Salomon's work to Commons, taking advantage of the new URAA dispensation. However I'm not sure of her PD status.

Salomon died October 1943 and her work would normally have entered the public domain in the European Union beginning this year. But her work was not published in her lifetime, and the earliest date for publication would seem to be 1961 with an Amsterdam exhibition (and accompanying brochure). It's possible that one or two of her works were illustrated in academic journals before this date, but I don't know of any.

The Berne Convention for works of arts depend on the date of publication (and not creation), but I'm wholly unable to find a clear statement of the situation on Wikipedia. This at Wikipedia: Copyright Duration Directive#Previously_unpublished_works, for example, suggests that duration of copyright is 25 years in the case of previously unpublished work in the public domain: "The directive accords copyright to the publisher of a public domain work which was previously unpublished, for 25 years after the date of publication." But what is the situation for unpublished work not in the public domain, and is the copyright term fifty or seventy years? Originally Berne directed fifty years, but the EU directive extended that to 70 years after the author's death. I'm wondering in the case of unpublished work whether 50 years after first publication still applies, notwithstanding the directive. In that case some 80 of Salomon's goauches would now be in the public domain (Paul Tillich and Emil Strauss,Charlotte: A Diary in Pictures, 1963).

I'm aware that it's often very difficult to ascertain date of first publication and that a pragmatic view is to assume that for an established artist it coincides with the date of creation. However this plainly doesn't apply to Salomon and I would appreciate an expert opinion (quoting the relevant articles in law would be appreciated). The Salomon Foundation has a reputation for being solicitous about their copyright and it would be well to be sure of one's ground (I once illustrated a Holocaust Day blog with one of Salomon's works and was astonished, and slightly flattered, to receive an email from the Foundation pointing out her work was still in copyright). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The drafting seems to me to be throughly ambiguous. In Preamble 11 we see
Whereas in order to establish a high level of protection which at the same time meets the requirements of the internal market and the need to establish a legal environment conducive to the harmonious development of literary and artistic creation in the Community, the term of protection for copyright should be harmonized at 70 years after the death of the author or 70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public, and for related rights at 50 years after the event which sets the term running;
but in the operative part itself no provision is made to enact "70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public" the relevant article being Article 1
The rights of an author of a literary or artistic work within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, irrespective of the date when the work is lawfully made available to the public.
which of course doesn't deal at all with "70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public".
I really would appreciate expert advice here. I would much like to see Charlotte Salomon's work on Commons (indeed deputed to), but I'm not prepared to invest the time if I have to defend the uploads against nominations for deletion. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Directive 2006/116/EC supersedes Directive 93/98/EEC but does not materially change the issue (except that related rights now run for just 25 years). On reflection it can only be that Preamble 11 (1998) "70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public" refers to Article 1.3 dealing with anonymous or pseudonymous authors.
I'm quite persuaded now that I'm correct in asserting those first 80 gouches (comprising all Salomon's signature works) published in 1963 in asserting all Charlotte Salomon's works are now PD in the EU. I shall upload one work immediately to discover response, and unless I hear convincingly to the contrary will upload a selection to Commons starting next week. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not the expert you are asking for so I shall not attempt an answer. However, let me make a few points which may simplify or confuse the situation. Whatever else, if WMF receive a takedown request they will almost certainly delete the images. Are the images photos you have taken? If not, are Salomen Foundation possibly claiming copyright on the photography (or just wishing)? Until 1965 German copyright was life plus 80[24] and the EU directive did not require this to be shortened, 2006/106 Art 10,1.[25] I think the directive is rather awkward but not ambiguous at "whereas 12". German law might not accurately implement the directive. From a UK pov this[26] and this[27] may help (it looks as if publication during the term of copyright does not confer publication rights). Thincat (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have been considering Germany for no good reason but I see France and Holland also get involved! Thincat (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Thincat. I understand that about the takedown. What has changed (I hope) is that deletion for the mere sake of it may now stop (it was still going on when I first considered whether it was worthwhile to upload to Commons - I decided not and took the local upload Fair Use route, but that meant high resolution images couldn't be used and even worse projects like the Netherlands wiki, which don't have local uploads as far as I can see, couldn't use them). I think I could justify a URAA objection, but I do devoutly hope it doesn't arise because all these copyright issues are pretty draining. I'm sure now about PD. When I started my account back in November, I was thrown by an objection to my local uploads pointing out the issue of publication under the terms of the Berne Convention, and for a long time I was genuinely puzzled about that, but I'm sure I understand the position now. The Charlotte Salomon Foundation were gifted Salomon's work in 1971. I imagine they had publisher's rights, but her entire work was published by 1983 and those accordingly expired by 2008. The only issue here is the URAA one and I shall just have to hope that editors and admins are a little more pragmatic about that. Thanks for your help. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
This one could be very messy. Many countries do have a specific provision for works published posthumously; the EU directive I'm pretty sure did away with those (the "70 years from publication" part of the EU directive is generally for anonymous/pseudonymous works where the real author is unknown and is not for posthumous works) but I'm not sure how many pre-EU directive laws had them, and if they did, it's quite possible they were not shortened by the new laws conforming to the directive. For example, France's 1957 law (replaced in 1997) had a term of 50 years from publication for any works published posthumously (the old Article 23). Nowadays they just mention the 25-year publication right, but that previous term might have started running, and if some of the paintings were only published in the early 1980s, that term might still be running in France. The 25-year publication right is only supposed to apply for works first published after the author's copyright term has lapsed, but it sounds like since it's been more than that since all of the paintings have been published, that is moot anyways. Pre-directive copyright law could be a real thorn, but I think that is the only way they could be copyrighted in the EU now. The "country of origin" is the country of first publication, and it sounds like that could be difficult to determine and may even be very different depending on each individual work. Exhibition is usually not publication, but publicity material like brochures associated with an exhibition probably would be. I see one early book was Charlotte: A Diary in Pictures, published by Harcourt, Brace, & World in 1963, and which supposedly contained 80 paintings (out of 700+ total). That is a U.S. publisher, meaning for those, the U.S. might actually be the country of origin. I do not see a renewal for that book anywhere, and the initial U.S. publication would exempt them from the URAA as well, so if that book was the first publication for any of those paintings, I think those would be OK to host on Commons, URAA or no URAA. Most other works would have been restored by the URAA, unless they were first published in a country which had 50-pma terms before the EU directive (there were some like Portugal and Italy) and did not have a posthumous term, as those might have expired before 1996. Germany and the Netherlands were 70 pma before that, so any first published there would definitely have been restored by the URAA. The Charlotte Salomon Foundation filed an explicit NIE ("Notice of Intent to Enforce", number V8006P368) as allowed under the URAA. The claim on that was for "Leven? of theater? & 1 other work. Paintings & texts. Filed for all rights." If the WMF is comfortable hosting works even in light of that, they might be OK, but I'm still very confused by the Foundation's statement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm very grateful that you've taken the time to comment in such detail, Carl. Thank you very much indeed.
First of all you've confirmed what I thought would the case regarding the first tranche of 80 gouaches published in 1963 (London and New York, also The Netherlands, Germany and Italy). I don't have that book as it happens (on order) but I've taken care that the one gouache I have uploaded is the same as appears on the cover of the book (Salomon's work wasn't a diary incidentally, a rather unfortunate oversight of the editors to call it such). I'll take a chance on the so-called 'signature' image being amongst that first tranche and upload that as well. Otherwise I'll hang fire until I receive the book and can determine which images I can upload. 1981 saw the publication of virtually all her work in Judith Herzberg's Leven? of theater? Een autobiografisch zangspel in 769 gouaches (also translated in English [New York, London] and Dutch) and I assume that's the book filed for by the Charlotte Salomon Foundation. A huge industry developed in Salomon's work by the 1980s, so I can well understand their moving to protect their rights. I rather doubt they would file today for protection in the USA under URAA, but of course there are other estates which certainly will. Am I correct in saying the Picasso estate is one such? I believe so. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The NIE was something created specifically by the URAA; the Salomon Foundation filed it in 1997. The effect of that was to minimize the rights of "reliance parties", i.e. people who had previously been using the works since they had been public domain -- those users did have some limited rights of continued usage without the NIE (versus people who started using the works only after the URAA took effect, which would be full copyright violations if not done with permission). It would be an interesting question if the Salomon Foundation would try to exercise U.S. rights now that the EU copyright has expired (or likely expired), but they would be fully within their rights to do so, and if such rights exist they will continue for several more decades. The foundation is undoubtedly quite aware of those rights, and yes, I'm sure many estates would exercise them. I personally would not touch anything outside of that first book, but if the WMF is now willing to host undoubtedly under-copyright works under a fair use rationale, it could change things. But there would be almost no fair-use defense for uploading all 700+ images, particularly if a good case can be made for a number of the works from the 1963 book now being OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for this. I'm not absolutely sure that first 1963 collection was ever on sale in the US, if that's relevant. I can see a Library of Congress listing 63014210 for the book as published by Harcourt, but of my books two (Royal Academy of Arts and Steinberg) both list the work as "Collins, London", while Herzberg just notes it was published in English, German, Dutch and Italian editions. I shall examine my copy of the 1963 Harcourt edition carefully when it arrives.
I don't have plans to upload all 700+ images myself. It would be slightly pointless I think because the Joods Historisch Museum (JHM) in Amsterdam has beautiful interactive pages of the whole work (as a singespiel with musical quotations, transparencies and bilingual text in Dutch and English). My plan is to upload a few high resolution versions of the most iconic images, linking to the JHM pages and providing (my own) translations into English. I'm not sure about transparencies. I think it's very unlikely any of those appeared in the 1963 edition, but the noted art historian Griselda Pollock has criticised their omission in editions. When I transfer to Commons the so-called 'signature image' (this is the final image of Salomon sketching in her garden at L'Ermitage, Villefranche-sur-Mer) I shall transfer the transparency as well on a no doubt spurious 'fair use' claim, scanning from my 1981 edition. I shall be curious to see how that fares.
Both you and Thincat have been very generous with your time. I am grateful. Off-topic, but by any chance can anyone looking in provide the coordinates of the L'Ermitage in Villefranche-sur-Mer? This was the American Ottilie Moore's villa where Salomon (and a number of Jewish children) were offered refuge (Salomon dedicated her work to her), but it was destroyed after the war and I haven't been able to locate it, although the site was visited by the Royal Academy editors. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I have replied at User talk:Coat of Many Colours#Villa L'Ermitage, Villefranche-sur-Mer Thincat (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, brilliant. Thanks so much for that. Excellent source you found there. I've made some comments and will continue tomorrow. Thanks so much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify here because I'm leaving the project (basically jaded) and don't want to put the project in a false position.

To the best of my knowledge, the situation regarding Charlotte Salomon's PD status in the US is that, for the purposes of US law, her work in its entirety was first published in the Netherlands in 1971 when her estate gifted her entire work to the Charlotte Salomon Foundation at the Joods Historisch Museum in Amsterdam. This means the bulk of her work only enters the PD in the US the 95 years following in 2067. There is a question about the original 1963 collection of 80 or so gouaches, published in English, Dutch, German and Italian editions. This was indeed published in the US (as Carl discovered, apparently overlooked by reference works and even perhaps the Salomon Foundation). The copyright for this work was not renewed (as Carl also found), and so the work entered the PD in the US in 1992 and at least one well known work published in the US in 1994 appears to rely on this. However the 1963 work almost certainly qualifies for URAA restoration on my understanding. The only circumstances it doesn't appears to be if it was published simultaneously with the first foreign publication. This is not impossible since a co-author was Paul Tillich, an American, and I'm in the process of checking that.

What I've done so far is transfer the existing Fair Use files at Salomon's Wikipedia article to Commons taking advantage of this new dispensation, and I'll write those up over the next day or two as comprehensively as I am able (no expert on Salomon me). I'll also try and find a form of words that discourages further uploads without too censoriously disqualifying my own uploads. If these files have to be taken down, well so be it. I do understand.

Of course it would be pleasant that a figure as poignant as Salomon, whose own publication in her lifetime was limited to entrusting her work to her family doctor with the words "Keep this safe, it's my entire life", could now be disseminated world wide on Commons. But the fact of the matter is that the Joods Historisch Museum already does a pretty good job on that. About the only real advantage I can see of hosting them on Commons is that the {{LangSwitch}} template allows users to add translations in their native languages, and I have been careful to make that facility user friendly in my uploads.

I thank everyone for the courtesy and time extended me. I am very grateful. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now heard from the publisher (Houghton Mifflin continuing Harcourt Brace and World). They can't provide a date of publication. I've ordered a copy of the 1st edition of the US publication and will report back if that sheds any light. I'm inclined to think now that the publication was indeed simultaneous. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I've seen the American first edition now. It's a Helen and Kurt Wolff book, noted publishers of the time. There's no mention of foreign publication on the copyright page, where copyright is simply recorded as "© 1963 by Albert Salomon and Paula Salomon-Lindberg" i.e. Salomon's estate before Charlotte's work was gifted to a Foundation in 1971 (these were Charlotte's parents, who survived the war). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Attribute code names

I often see images in newspapers and news internet sites that are from Wikimedia. The sites often write "Source: Wikipedia" or "Source: Wikimedia", not the uploader's name. It was claimed by one journalist that they won't credit code names, only real names of people or companies. Should they credit a Wikimedia uploader who is only known under a user code name, such as BIL? --BIL (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

For works that are not in the public domain but under a free license such as Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, reusers are required to attribute "the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable)" (quoted from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode, section 4), and unless they have negotiated other terms with the copyright holder, nothing other than complying with the licensing terms gives them the right to use the licensed content. Having some odd aversion against pseudonyms does not give one the right to commit copyright infringement. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

CC License templates trouble

The text of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} includes (via translatewiki) the text, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor..." It seems to me that this is wrong. A) When I read the actual legal code, I see nothing to support the bold language; the code says, among other things, that a user must "keep intact all copyright notices" but "The credit required ... may be implemented in any reasonable manner" (with some minor caveats, none of which come close to allowing the author to specify the manner. I've noticed edits that suggest that a number of our contributors are being misled by this into thinking that they can specify the manner and that the license requires users to honor that specification. B) OTOH, it seems to me that the 4.0 legal code IS compatible with this language, though others disagree. C)So, if I'm right about A), what should we do about it?--Elvey (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It depends what meaning one attributes to the word "manner" in the context. I think it is understood that in the context of the template Cc-by-sa-3.0, "manner" is a sort of short form to express the requirement comprised in section 4(c)(i) of the license CC by-sa 3.0 : ["the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties;"]. I guess it would correspond to section 3(a)(1)(A)(i) of the license CC by-sa 4.0. It is distinguished from the next sentence of the same section 4(c)(i) of CC by-sa 3.0 ("The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner;") and from section 3(a)(2) of CC by-sa 4.0. That said, English is not my language, so I'm not one who will offer a scholarly semantic analysis of the word "manner". Although licensors and licensees should read the actual text of the license, it might be useful to lift the ambiguity in the template, if you can think of an improved yet short way to express the requirement. I suppose people would rather keep the template stable and change it only if the improvement is convincing, because it is one of the most widely used templates. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is the subject of one of the larger debates around Commons, and the term manner here is very ambiguous and leads to a lot of different interpretations. There may however be benefits to licensing under 4.0 International rather than under 3.0 Unported that avoids the ambiguity, with the introduction of a new "interpretation" section at the bottom, but I've not explored these concepts fully just yet. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding you both. My french isn't great, so I sympathize. I appreciate that 'manner' can be interpreted multiple ways. But what's not subject to interpretation is that we're talking about attribution. If there's a way to interpret the actual legal code, to support the bold language, I'm still not seeing it. What meaning of 'manner' gives such an interpretation. Please explain here - or point me to one of the previous discussions you mention as being on point. Or can anyone else chime in? [Update]: Maybe I'm getting what you're trying to convey - is the argument that "keep intact all copyright notices" somehow means that attribution must be "n the manner specified", despite the ""The credit required ... may be implemented in any reasonable manner" language? If that's an argument that's been presented, who has presented it, and does anyone support it? --Elvey (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
This ties into the heavy debates around the guidelines for watermarks that comes up every now and then on Commons. The underlying question to all this is:

Ceteris paribus (all other licensing/attribution requirements satisfied), if someone adds a watermark "© CopyrightHolderName" to the image, is Commons free to remove the watermark or not?

Commons has difficulty resolving this issue and coming up with a definitive answer, so I'll point to relevant active threads about this: User:Andy king50 and watermark 'policy', Legality of cropping out copyright bylines/watermarks, Oppose "should not be removed" for invisible watermarks, Copyright watermarks. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to point me to those. Based on your description, these all pertain to watermarks in particular. I am wondering, rather about onerous attribution requirements I'd seen (can't seem to find any now though, arrrg) that did not relate to watermarks. Oh, and I see there's lots of overlap. read the andy king thread, the meta thread... oy. Still, I see nothing to support the bold language. --Elvey (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Elvey: The texts of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} was taken from the old version of by-sa/3.0/. CC changed it while releasing version 4.0. (CC can change the wordings in the deed even though they can't edit the legal text, as the deed is merely intended to explain the legal code.) The new wording ("You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.") is much better compared to the old; but conditions like "provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made" are not well defined in the 3.0 legal code. CC always states "they intended such things in older versions" and suggests to use new versions instead of relying on the old ones. But one legal issue is court only consider the wordings of the legal code; they can't make assumptions like "it was intended" or so. That is why the "watermark" matter popups every now and then. :)
Unfortunately we copied the old template for {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} without making any changes. We discussed it Template talk:Cc-by-sa-4.0; but it ended without any solution/action. Many of our license tags are outdated; so I switched to my own tags and explanations. I'm not encouraging it; but as far as we are lazy on updates, there is no other solution. :( Jee 05:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of self taken by another

When one person asks another person to take their picture for upload to Wikipedia, and the person operating the camera agrees, who owns the copyright? Can copyright be casually transferred between individuals or does it take a formal declaration?

Has this ever come up before? How does Commons feel about this? How easy it is for people to transfer copyright between themselves? I am not asking about this case specifically as I really would like to understand this.

I asserted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lane Oct 2011.jpg that I had rights to a picture another person had taken for me. Who owns the copyright in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This question has been directly answered to you on multiple occasions previously, including on the refusal to COM:UNDEL without an OTRS, and on the original deletion nomination where you were urged to file an OTRS, on my talk page, etc. and so on. It's really simple. The image remains copyright the photographer not the subject of the photo, otherwise there would be no financial incentive to be a paparazzi. If the subject of the image owned the photos, paparrazi would starve no matter how many likenesses they grabbed - because all the pictures would belong to the subject. I am sure you see the absurdity of that! Simply for Commons, if someone else took your photo, all you have to do is have the photographer fill out the very simple OTRS form. It would probably have taken a lot less time than all these repeated queries to hear the same answer from at least three people so far. Please see your additional queries and my answers on my talk page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I should add that in most countries, including the United States, transfer of copyright requires a written agreement. If you ask someone to take your photograph, even if it is your camera, they own the copyright unless they transfer it to you in writing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Jim, this may be technically correct, however in line with existing project policies, the production of prior written contracts/agreements is not required for OTRS validation of a transfer of copyright that may have been by verbal agreement/understanding. An uncontested statement confirming a verbal agreement should be taken on good faith unless there is reason to do otherwise, as this is sufficient to demonstrate that we have taken reasonable precautions to assure that rights are respected. There is every reason to assume good faith when a statement comes from someone using their verifiable legal identity, especially when they have an excellent track record here and clearly understand that they would be subject to personal claims of damages if they were misrepresenting the copyright holder.
In this particular case, as Bluerasberry makes no secret of their legal identity, and has made a public statement, an OTRS ticket truthfully adds little more than a veneer of bureaucracy, but is a convenient mime to avoid the same questions being repeatedly asked.
Anyway, I don't want to dig too far into this, again. If anyone wants to try to satisfy our resident wikilawyers, they are free to knock themselves out at Commons talk:Transfer of copyright. Legally there is plenty of mileage in interpreting the law and case law around "gifts" which is effectively what someone who takes your photo on your request and gives the camera back to you is doing. This is a topic that could do with some pro bono legal advice (under US IP law) to tidy up once and for all rather than Wikimedians getting into our endless amateurish copyright loops. --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
All true. I particularly like the thought that if I take your picture in front of the Statue of Liberty with your camera, I have implicitly made you a gift of the copyright.
With that said however, the question is, how far do we extend AGF? I am perfectly comfortable with our standard use of it -- if User:X says that he took the picture, then, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, whether that be User:X's record here or something about the image itself, we keep it. However, when the image was clearly not taken by the uploader, I think we get into a difficult area for AGF. It is not uncommon to see images of NotablePerson, uploaded as "own work" by User:NotablePerson, when the user is just a fan, neither NotablePerson nor the copyright holder. We get images taken by professional photographers who have retained copyright -- the chain portrait studio Olan Mills is very clear that they hold copyright to all of their images. And so forth. Therefore, I think that when it is obvious that the uploader did not take the image, we should always have an OTRS license, if only to force the uploader to think again about who really owns the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Commons could do with engaging the (informal) services of real lawyers rather than the endless amateur lawyering and wikilawyering that seem to only demonstrate the fallacy of the Wisdom of the crowd. We have this problem where lawyers and WMF do not wish to be seen to be offering legal advice, or WMF Legal promise a response to a query yet don't deliver. We have this tendency to invent legal problems for ourselves that don't or rarely pose any issues in the real world. It most certainly is not "really simple" nor does it tend to follow any rational logic. In the linked discussion above, a random passing tourist agrees to take a photo of a couple with their camera. Who owns the photo? Who cares? In previous discussions, I've seen that physicians consider themselves owners (and thus able to publish) of radiographic images requested by them of their patients, by actually taken by a radiographer. It turns out that often the hospital may own the images, or they may not actually be subject to copyright protection in some countries. Who knows? Who cares? The publishers get a signature from the physician when they publish their paper and that's good enough for them. In these scenarios we can endlessly fight among ourselves about who is right or whether it matters (passes our precautionary principle). Or we could just get someone (WMF, say) to make a completely arbitrary decision and live with it. I think sometimes the community needs to admit to being shit at these kind of decisions. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
"We have this tendency to invent legal problems for ourselves that don't or rarely pose any issues in the real world." Please don't make comments like that and complain that other people are wikilawyering. If I told a lawyer that I have a recent picture by an unknown person, they're going to ask why I really need to use the picture instead of having a new one taken under contract or by myself. Lawyers tend to be risk-adverse that way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, not long ago Dschwen asked Luis Villa about it. Maybe we’ll get a meta:Wikilegal memo ont this topic. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did. For the record: it was on Luis' meta talk page. --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
And yet another example of WMF legal not following through? -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Not quite @Colin: , we will apparently get this memo soon. --Dschwen (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
That's one of those real-life situations where following the letter of the law gets a bit odd, but it's unlikely there is a court case out there which could give us guidance. The copyright owner is the persons (or people) whose creative input ends up in the final product. From the Rogers v Koon case (based on others before it), Elements of originality in a photograph may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved. The copyright then would be owned by the author of those elements. Normally with a photograph, this is the photographer (the one pressing the shutter). In an extreme situation, where a person sets up the scene, poses the subjects, frames the shot, then gets into the scene themselves and has an assistant press the shutter -- in that situation the assistant would not be the author, since it was the first person whose creative input is expressed in the eventual photograph. You could also have a situation where two people were involved in the creative decisions -- that could end up in a joint authorship situation technically. In that case, in the U.S., normally either author can issue any non-exclusive license to the work as they wish (just being required to split profits with the other authors), but there is some question if a license like CC-BY might require the sign-off of all authors. Personally, I think a very good case can be made that most of the creative decisions are being made by the person who asks to have their picture taken -- they are choosing the subjects, they will usually pose themselves, they often choose the basic angle and composition of the photo, etc. It's possible the person who presses the shutter might have a joint copyright, but I'm not at all convinced that person would own 100% of the copyright (the situation where we would need to see their permission or evidence of a transfer). While the answer to the original question might hinge on a lot of the small details of what went into the photo, I personally would rather just accept an "own work" claim in these situations, and revisit if the other potential copyright owner voices an objection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments everyone. I will draft something, put it in a public place, then ask for comment. I like the idea of getting an opinion from the WMF and then abiding by that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    If you wish to work on this, please build on the discussions at Commons talk:Transfer of copyright, even if they are inconclusive. It may be an idea to use that same page to put any new proposal you come up with. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Wouldn't it have been simpler to file the OTRS ticket with your friend who pushed the shutter's signature on it in the first place? The original situation which led to this had nothing to do with tourists and everything to do with a professional type photograph of a subject, where the subject then claims he owns the copyright because he is in the picture. I really can't see any reason for the Foundation to get into it, this situation is covered in the policies and guidelines already. There's no reason to try to change the world just because working within the existing policies and guidelines is unacceptable to one user. If you know who took your picture, why can't you just ask them to send the OTRS? Problem would have been solved two weeks ago without all this extra chat. Just my two cents after reading all this here and all your messages on my talk page about this same topic. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    I think you may have missed "I am not asking about this case specifically" when Bluerasberry started the discussion. --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    His comments on my talk page are entirely about the original image, and he requests that I meet him at the pump. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    And there is a precedent for using OTRS when it appears that professionals are involved in photography. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I posted a case at Commons_talk:Transfer_of_copyright#Proposal_to_satisfy_the_Geni_requirement_and_to_avoid_endless_revert_wars to build off an existing proposal and conversation. Thanks everyone for your kind attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Undelete request

Pursuant to the discussion above, the permission from LifeTouch has been forwarded to info-en (by me), ticket:2014042110015198. Can a sysop please undelete File:MujaddidAhmedIjaz1987.jpg so I can add an OTRS pending tag, move the ticket to permissions-en and wait for another agent to look at it? Thanks! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: Can we also undelete the associated image which was I believe File:Dr. Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz, 1983.png? Thanks all. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Hi FRF, would you let me know how we are coming along on this request, since I cannot see status of the OTRS ticket? Many thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Good early morning, FRF. The two images were restored overnight, but with a notice on each images' home page that has an obvious error which can be fixed easily. This is how the text of the notice reads:
An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard.
To address the section in bold print above, I have researched the fact that Olan Mills Studios, that originally made the image, was sold to Lifetouch, Inc on November 9, 2011. The Wikipedia entry for Olan Mills [28] states that as well does this source here: [29]. As I do not have an OTRS account and cannot access the file to correct the template as it is instructed to do on the image's home page OTRS notice, can I ask you to do that please?
As far as the "sufficient permission" issue raised in the OTRS Notice, it was made very clear in the Lifetouch release that Lifetouch understands by giving CC-by-SA licensing rights, they must respect the free license usage offered to anyone who accesses Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. The Lifetouch release says the following:
By granting a limited purpose use of "CC-by-SA", Lifetouch acknowledges that Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are universally accessible and available portals to users of these encyclopedic entries, and that as such, Wikimedia and Wikipedia data must be freely available to all its users.
Can I ask for some help in making sure this is cleared up so we can use the images without fear of having them deleted again? Lifetouch worked with us as best they could within their constraints and accepted everything I asked them to do. And they granted us the right to use the image. Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Help on File:Teófilo Braga em 1882 na revista Galeria Republicana N.13.jpg

Need some help here in this file, please.

a) The picture (by Antonio Maria Serra) surely is public domain (published in 1882).

b) Is the digital source were I based the final work relevant in this case since it is a hemeroteca from a public library?

Thanks, NelsonCM (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The template {{PD-scan}} is used when the scanned work is PD, you didn't personally make the scan, but you want to assert that the scan itself is insufficiently original to have its own copyright protection. More details about using {{PD-scan}} are at Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. Since the work was published in 1882 and Antonio Maria Serra died in 1900, I've updated the image description with the author's info and changed the license to {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1900}}. —RP88 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, NelsonCM (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No subject

Dear Sirs

I am engaged on producing a book on Bonding, Structure and Solid State Chemistry, which will be published by Oxford University Press next year. I would be most grateful for permission to reproduce, with appropriate acknowledgement, the two illustrations of semiconductors that appear on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrinsic_semiconductor

Yours sincerely

Mark Ladd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markladd (talk • contribs) 11:37, 25 April 2014‎ (UTC)

You don't need to ask for prior permission to use content on Wikimedia Commons. All you need to do is to look at the file description pages (in this case File:N-Type Semiconductor Bands.svg and File:P-Type Semiconductor Bands.svg) and comply with any licensing requirements mentioned there. In this case, the images are in the public domain, which means there are no licensing requirements that you need to comply with (but it would still be nice of you to credit Inductiveload). Please see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for more information. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a copyvio?

File:Definición de movilidad social.png I don't think the text is free. Palosirkka (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help

I took some pictures if the outside of Google HQ, including a picture of a statue of an android. Is this copyvio, and can someone help me fix it, as I'm a newb? Ty Bananasoldier (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't crosspost. You already got a response at Commons:Help desk#Uploading pictures of artwork/statues. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Borghi più belli d'Italia

Using inkscape I have made This logo, that is used by italian association borghi più belli d'Italia. Can this file remain on Commons? If yes, could someone make it better? Thanks --Lkcl it (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Should I ask the deletion for this file? --Lkcl it (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

US-no notice question

Hello. Move forward to 1:40 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQlNKJzTmTI. Has the image shown fallen into public domain due to failure to follow copyright formalities? It occurred to me immediately after deleting File:Rev James Cleveland 2014-04-26 02-47.jpg that even though the given license was wrong, maybe it was indeed free. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Took a look and found an exact copy of the photo in a 1974 Billboard issue. It's on an editorial page (Billboard awards) and not part of an ad, so the Billboard use of it wouldn't be PD. It probably was issued either by his management or record company but I didn't find any other photos that matched. If someone can turn up a copy showing dating and source it would likely be PD. We hope (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

517design (talk · contribs)

Can someone please go through the contributions of this user and correct their choice of licensing? They seem to have mistaken various licenses for the more correct {{PD-Art}} template which would apply to recreations of old public domain media. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Images from Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica, tagging

The website for the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica posts (http://www.asamblea.go.cr) posts pictures of lawmakers. I could not find any copyright information on the website of any kind, so I asked for clarification through e-mail. After getting bounced around a little, a lawyer replied in Spanish that "there is no problem with using the images from the legislative portal, although you might want to indicate the source. This includes any other information that interests you and is available on the portal. All the information on it is public, without any manner of restriction." My question is this: what release rights category should I use to tag such images? Many thanks, Mvblair (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would probably send that information to the people at Commons:OTRS and see what they have to say. But in my opinion, "public, without any manner of restriction" sounds rather vague; I think there have been cases where others made their works "public" as in "anyone can view in public" rather than "anyone can modify, distribute, reuse commercially etc in public" TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Mvblair, as pointed by TeleComNasSprVen, every authorization must be specific, and no, "all the information on it is public" does not mean that all the information is free. Ralgis (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Also see the gratis versus libre distinction. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, TeleComNasSprVen and Ralgis. One more wrinkle is this: private newspapers in Costa Rica use those photos of legislators (as well as car registration photos for criminals and suspects and all other types of government documents) because they are made for public use. Does that change the way they can be uploaded and used? Thanks again. Mvblair (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
That does not affect whether these images can be uploaded to Commons, because images uploaded here must be available for free use and modification by anyone. Private newspapers do not operate under any such restriction, so their use of these photos does not imply that they can be uploaded here. --Avenue (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, for the reply, Avenue. Thanks, everyone! 22:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Uploading pictures of the inside of a company building

Hi! Say I take pictures of the inside of a company building. Can I upload those pictures to CC-BY-SA or CC-BY? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It depends on where the building is, if it is in a location that has a Freedom of panorama for buildings then yes, or if the building is out of copyright. LGA talkedits 01:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it also depends on whether there is anything about the depicted building interior that's protected by copyright in the first place. On the one hand, a lobby with marble pillars, a grand staircase and ceiling paintings would be protected by copyright in most places, unless the building is old enough for the copyright to have expired. On the other hand, a featureless office filled with gray cubicles in utilitarian rows is unlikely to attract any copyright protection in most jurisdictions. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello i need help to know what license i can give to old bus company ČSAD logo from ex Czechoslovak Republic ? Link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ČSAD_logo.svg Can someone help ? --Walta (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are the copyright holder of the logo, you cannot legally issue any copyright license for it. However, depending on the threshold of originality in the relevant jurisdiction(s) (I don't know if that would be the Czech Republic, Slovakia, or both), it may be in the public domain for the reasons described in {{PD-textlogo}}, in which case you could use that template to indicate the file's copyright status. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any information on the threshold of originality in the Czech Republic or Slovakia. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to use this trademark http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_old_logo2.png, in a private business presentation (not sharing). I am using it as a symbol of 2001 in technology and internet field. My dubt consists in using or not to using a licecing label or other sign which allow to recognise the author (CC, etc).

Unless you get permission or can claim fair use, you cannot use it (most works at Wikimedia Commons are free, but not the logos, and additionally there are the trademark considerations). There is no author given on the page, so I think you safely can leave that information out (the uploader may or may not be the author). The image has nothing to do with CC (Creative Commons). Handle it as you would handle any other trademark under copyright. If in doubt, ask WMF or your lawyer. --LPfi (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/04&oldid=123399358"