Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/07

File:Logo women football,jpg.jpg

Image is claimed as "own work", but there's is no indication that the uploader actually created the image and that is not simply a non-free logo downloaded from another website. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. Deleted. Thanks for reporting. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:    FDMS  4    16:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

CC by-sa 3.0 and the use of an image in print

I feel a little stupid, asking that as a long-time contributer to Commons, but until now I had almost only to handle the re-use of images on the web. The question is: How can an image, licensed under CC by-sa 3.0, be legally reused for example on the cover of a book and advertising posters for such a book? Crediting the author and mentioning the license is no problem. But it requests, that if you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. Does that mean, the book (just its cover or the whole "material"), posters etc. would have to licensed under CC by-sa 3.0 as well? --Tsui (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: no. This would only be required if somebody would create a new work based on your image. --Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! But just make it clear (for me), because the excerpt from the license text I quoted above still confuses me. What does you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original mean? Which contributions are meant by that? The cover I mentioned would be based on the picture, but edited (colors, crop etc.) and graphical artwork, more than just the title, would be added. For a cover like this for example, given that the photo is CC by-sa 3.0, it would be sufficient, to mention the photographer and "CC by-sa 3.0" for the picture on the inside of the jacket, while the artwork as a whole would not be included in the license? --Tsui (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, all illustrations which include any significant part of CC BY-SA image is CC BY-SA too. And you are prohibited to make any steps to protect somehow derivative works. To me it is clear from license text. Book text is copirated separately so CC BY-CA is not applicable to the text. F. e. you can scan any CC BY-SA derived picture in a book and post it with appropriate attribution, but you cannot post the same picture with text around it (scan and post the whole page). --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-free Wikimedia chapter files

In case you missed it, the Wikimedia Foundation finally joined the free content movement and released its logos under a free license in October last year. {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} has been modified to reflect this. All content on Commons must now be covered by a free license. The sole exception from that, which allowed non-free content if and only if the copyright was held by the Wikimedia Foundation, has been removed from our licensing policy.

A few templates based on the old wording of {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} remain in Category:License tags non-free. {{Copyright by Wikimedia Deutschland}} had very little usage, and I've put those files up for deletion unless they're published under a free license. After that, the template should be deleted as well.

Other templates have more high-profile usage. {{Copyright by Wikimedia Italia}} is used on ten files which in turn have a fair bit of usage. {{Copyright by Wikimedia Polska}} is only used for one file, which in turn is used on three pages.

Question 1: Were these tags for non-free content from Wikimedia chapters ever allowed by our licensing policy? The exception only mentioned content "copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation", and the Wikimedia chapters are legally independent of the Wikimedia Foundation, so I'm inclined to say no.

Question 2: Is the content that uses these tags covered by the Wikimedia Foundation's announcement and thus covered by a free license? Again, since the chapters are legally independent of the foundation, I'm inclined to say no.

(As for the other templates in Category:License tags non-free: to be continued.)

—LX (talk, contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking non-legally as a past Chapters Association chairman and a past chapter chairman; Wikimedia logos must be agreed through WMF legal. As such an "official" logo for a chapter falls under the chapters agreement and remain under the control of WMF legal. If a chapter misuses the logo, maybe print it on underpants to sell on eBay, then WMF legal can break the agreement and remove the authority for a chapter to use Wikimedia logos. Hence,

Question 1: No apart from the logos above. The potentially varying nature of Chapters (and Thematic orgs or legally created other bodies) means that a blanket agreement does not exist.

Question 2: No apart from the logos above. As you say, Chapters, et al, are entirely legally independent and the WMF does not create new agreements on their behalf.

Of course this is just me talking. If WMF legal say something on the matter then they are correct.

--Fæ (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem grandfathering in old files. I don't think the removal was really intended to affect existing files; it was a single editor wondering about the exception which really shouldn't apply for future uploads, then making the edit once pointed to the historical context for that exception. I would rather the license be changed, so definitely ask around to see if the licensing was a mistake (like I think it was in the case of the non-logo t-shirts) or has simply not been updated. I don't think there is any need to disrupt any existing activities using them though. Simply mark the template as not to be used for future uploads, and encourage re-licensing any existing images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As the user who removed it: I didn't knew the logos werent under a free license before, until the blog post was shown to me. And even then I expected it to be from 2010 or so and didn't look to the timestamp, so I didn't expect there could be still any file using this exception. And I still believe not even WMF should host nonfree files here. But I don't think we need to immediatly delete them. Rather ask the authors to rerelease the files under a free license and after some time (maybe end of the year? should really be enough time) send the still unfree files through the normal deletion process, but I don't expect the latter to be necassary. And I really hope no one gets superbanned for this… --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sculptor wishes to donated images of copyrighted sculpture

This sculpture by artist David Cregeen has traditional copyright. The artist photographed it and applied a CC license to the photograph. Is it correct that the copyright of the sculpture is unchanged, and that other photographs of the work would not have CC licenses?

Hello. Can someone direct me to guidelines discussing how a sculptor may donate images of their copyrighted sculpture to Wikipedia? Here are some details -

• There is a copyrighted sculpture
• The artist wishes to retain traditional copyright on that sculpture
• People routinely pay this artist licensing fees to publish photographs of this sculpture, and the artist wishes to retain the ability to collect these payments
• The artist wishes to apply a CC-By license to a photo of this non-CC 3D artwork, and share the photo on Commons and Wikipedia
• The artist does not want to give broad permission for others to publish their own photographs of the sculpture, as sculpture copyright must be retained
• The goal is to apply a CC license to a photo which notes that single photo as CC licensed, and gives notice that the photo depicts a copyrighted artwork, and that only this photo and not the sculpture has a CC license

What are some of the precedents for this being done on Commons? Consider Category:David Cregeen - this artist has shared photographs of his sculptures and but the sculptures remain with traditional copyright. Is there any template which can be used to note that the sculpture remains copyrighted, and that this photograph on Wikimedia Commons is depicting a non-CC work? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is possible. Due to this bizare interpretation. If the author of a sculpture licences photographic reproductions of his work, he will inevitably release his 3D work under this license. So, I do recommend against donating such images. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed previously at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/04#Photos_of_street_art_on_Commons. Carl Lindberg did think it is possible to license a single view of a work. However it seems like a contradiction to say that a given photo has a free license that allows derivative works, but deriving a 3D work would be an infringement of the original sculpture. --ghouston (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The copyright in a photograph is based on things like the angle, framing, perhaps lighting, and other elements under the photographer's control. It has absolutely nothing to do with the object being photographed. So, a derivative work of a photograph must by definition include those elements; if the angle/framing/etc. are not present in a secondary work then it is not a derivative work of the photograph, and the photographer's permission is moot. However, such a work (and the original photograph) *can* still be derivative of the object being pictured. The sculptor can certainly license the work only as far as it appears in a photograph. In general, if the second work includes any expression beyond what is in the photograph, the second work would be a copyright problem. Almost any other photograph would probably use additional expression of the sculpture, and would not be OK (it's usually hard to replicate the angle *exactly*). The interesting question then is if someone uses *only* that photograph to try and re-create the original; does the license allow that, given the very liberal nature of the license. Or is it simply permission to allow that photograph to be licensed CC-BY-SA, such that derivatives of the photo are OK, but not works which lose all photographic elements, and does that allow the photograph to still be "free". I think it should be -- interpreting it otherwise is just harmful to me because it limits the amount of free material which can realistically be put out there -- but yes there could be arguments otherwise. Obviously, a photo of a 2-D work is different (it would be very hard to license a photo freely of that, unless it was lower resolution only, since the photo is basically a copy of the original and any license would have to be based on the original expression). But to me, an author can license a subset of the expression they own and not license the rest, and slice and dice it however they like. The subset may not qualify for registration at the U.S. Copyright Office separately than the registration of the original, but I don't see how that should affect the author's ability to license just what they want. The CC's interpretation as linked above is still bizarre to me and doesn't make much sense, unless they are more thinking of the 2-D situation where "licensing" a photographic copy basically means you are licensing the original expression, since a license has to be based on a copyright to begin with. Still, a lower-resolution-only photo should be OK, to me -- you can't stop people from making that version bigger once licensed with CC-BY[-SA], but you should be able to prevent a higher-resolution copy directly of the original work. (Although, you probably are not able to prevent someone making a similar painting if it is based only off the licensed photograph -- maybe *that* is the situation CC is thinking about.) A photograph of a sculpture though would qualify as a separate work, so the CC's interpretation on the image resolution stuff may not come into play. An sculptor can certainly license (or allow) just one particular photo or other derivative work, the question really is does the CC license in particular require also licensing the underlying expression. The CC interpretation actually seems to say that is OK -- it is more dangerous though in the case where the secondary work does not have a separate copyright, since in that case the license is really of the original expression. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You say that the things like the angle, framing, perhaps lighting, make up the photographer's copyright. So a sculptor (for example) can't give a license for any of those things, since they belong to the photographer. A sculptor can only give a license for the sculpture that's being photographed. They can put a CC license on their sculpture. But how can they license a particular view of the sculpture when the view is not theirs to license? --ghouston (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it would be easier if the sculptor took the photograph themself. --ghouston (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The sculptor *also* has derivative rights over the photograph. They can license *that*, basically. So they can give permission for that, without licensing the direct expression of the original. The question is if that is still free, though I'd probably say it is. But yes we also need a license for the photographer's copyright (which I assume we'd get from them). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Ruslik0, Clindberg, and Ghouston: Ruslik, your interpretation may be correct. I asked because I thought what you are saying might be correct, but I still am not sure and want further clarity so I am going to push a bit more. Carl and Ghouson, thanks for your comments. I am continuing this conversation at Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Clarity_about_photos_of_copyrighted_3D_art_.2F_sculptures with a proposal to change Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#3D_art_.28sculptures_etc..29 to reflect what is discussed here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• User:Clindberg: You seem to interpret the situation based on United States copyright law, where there are two separate concepts known as a 'copy of a work' and a 'copy of a derivative work of a work'. The situation may be entirely different in countries such as Sweden where there is only one concept, which is known as a 'copy of a work'. When Sweden implemented the InfoSoc Directive, there was some modification to the definition of the word 'copy', and a 'copy' means that you are including a work, in whole or in part, to the extent that at least some of the aspects which meet the threshold of originality are included. This means, for example, that a photograph of a building constitutes a 'copy' of the building. The European Court of Justice seems to use the same definition: in w:Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, certain fragments consisting of eleven words from newspaper articles constituted 'copies' of the whole newspaper articles. The same rule therefore seems to apply to all EEA countries. This means that the sculpture, as erected in the park, constitutes the same 'work of copyright' as the sculpture as seen on the photograph. Since CC licences license 'works of copyright', this could mean that you license the entire sculpture under Swedish law even if you only intended to license the photograph. Also, Commons templates are sometimes a bit clumsy, saying that you license 'this work' without telling what 'this work' is. A photograph is usually not a 'work' under Swedish law, so a court might then try to see if there is something else in the image which constitutes a 'work'.

I guess that this is one of those really scary situations where the outcome depends on national definitions of concepts such as 'copy', 'work' and 'derivative work' and where you will get different results in different countries and where both the licensor and the licensee will have trouble finding out exactly what has been licensed and in which country it has been licensed. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

John Andersson (WMSE) I know that you live in Sweden, and you contributed to Commons:Wiki Loves Public Art 2013. I presume that people used Commons:Freedom of panorama#Sweden to justify taking the pictures. Stefan4 here is worrying that in Sweden in the process of photographing the works, the copyright status of the original work was changed. Was this discussed? What is your opinion on the effect of taking CC photographs of traditionally copyrighted sculptures? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Danish pamphlet from 1953

Hello,

I've recently found this pamphlet on the Internet Archive (probably best to download it here as the uncompressed pdf file is huge), a sample image from which I'd like if possible to use for a Wikipedia article. Any thoughts? It's supposed to be free of copyright according to the Internet Archive, but I'm not convinced since it's so recent, especially as it seems not to have been uploaded by them but by a third party. There is no obvious copyright statement, though I don't read Danish. Blythwood (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that a pamphlet published in 1953 is out of copyright? The normal copyright term is pma + 70 years. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the normal copyright term is pma + 50 years. Nine out of the 15 most populous nations, including the huge China, use pma + 50, and India and Venezuela use pma + 60. Population-wise, pma + 70 is third. Denmark is of course an EU nation that uses pma + 70 (and the Commons-important US is 95 years from publication/published after 1922).--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the Internet Archive claim it's out of copyright. But do you think they have any basis for saying that? Blythwood (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Internet Archive lets anyone upload stuff, and doesn't have the overview that Commons does, much less actual checking like Project Gutenberg or the Library of Congress. Someone falsely uploaded it as public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Hadn't realised how careless they are so when I saw something this odd I wondered of there was something I'd missed. Blythwood (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Guatemala

Many of these images seem to pass COM:TOO, but I can't find much information about the copyright status of Guatemalan government works (likely non-free), or insignia/legislation (less likely). Any ideas? Storkk (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

licensing vs. attribution vs. credit

If I paid a photographer to take a photo, I own it I think. It's been printed a lot and never with a copyright notice. Nonetheless, it is courteous to indicate "Credit: John Smith" or "Photo: John Smith" somewhere in a caption or credit line (in my experience) and I always do so. But if someone wanted to contact the "owner" or "copyright holder" he or she should contact me. (I have in mind the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. So it's not like I expect a whole lot of e-mails on this.)

It's easy enough to credit the photographer in a caption in a wikipedia article. Is that how I should do this? He won't be the one granting a license.

Or if it says, "Mary Jones, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publishes it under the following licenses: ..." can the attribution then read "Photo: John Smith"? Should it? Or should the attribution be "Mary Jones (John Smith, photographer)" or something like that?

Or is there some approach I'm not thinking of?

If I'm in the wrong forum, please forgive me and point me in the right direction?

Many thanks. Valuenyc (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The copyright rules for commissioned works vary per country. The copyright holder will often be the photographer, but sometimes its the person who paid for it. For Commons if the work is still in copyright you need an actual license from the copyright holder, just giving them attribution isn't sufficient. --ghouston (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The default copyright rules can also be overridden by any contract you signed with the photographer. --ghouston (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on your user name and a bit of Googling, I'm assuming you're based in the United States. Under US copyright law, paying for a photograph to be taken does not make you the copyright holder, unless the photographer is your employee (rather than a contractor) or you have a written contract explicitly stating that the resulting work is a work made for hire. Similarly, a transfer of copyright after creation also requires an agreement in writing. See en:Work for hire#Law in the United States for details. As already mentioned, only the legitimate copyright holder can issue a valid copyright license. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that you own the copyright in someone else's work (either because it's a work for hire, or the contract results in you owning it), the photographer's name doesn't need to be given, unless that too is part of the contract, e.g. "Buyer hereby agrees that all uses by Buyer and licensees will be accompanied by Photographer's name"; as far as Commons policy is concerned, you just need the copyright holder's identity. That's why it's always fine to attribute a corporate author; if the New York Times released its website under CC-BY-4.0, we'd be able to upload http://graphics8.nytimes.com/adx/images/ADS/40/85/ad.408508/CRS-7044_DigiCore_970x90_Retina.jpg with no attribution beyond "Work of the New York Times". Of course, if you know the photographer's name, it's pretty much always a good idea to include it; pretty much everything in Category:Historic American Buildings Survey is PD-USGov, making the author's name irrelevant for copyright purposes, but because we provide the author's name when known, we're able to have pages like Category:Jet Lowe and Category:Louise Taft. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:3FM.png

Is it acceptable to use another wiki site as the source for an image? Wiki sites are generally not considered to be reliable sources for content on Wikipedia since they are user generated pages. Can the copyright information for an image be verified from a user generated page? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it would be no different to other hosting sites such as Flickr, Panoramio or Facebook. It's probably OK if there's no reason to think the information isn't accurate. --ghouston (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

For 3FM.png, you can verify that it matches the original source: http://www.3fm.nl/live/. --ghouston (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It depends. If the other wiki is the original source and it's licensed there, then it's just as good as an original upload here, where we assume good faith (something you can't do with encyclopedia content, a completely different situation). If the image existed elsewhere previously, and we are relying on a free license like CC, then no the wiki upload probably would not be good enough (it would be Commons:License laundering). In this particular case, the claim is that there is no copyrightable authorship in the logo itself, which means you don't need any source -- all the information you need to make that determination is included in the uploaded content itself. I'm... borderline on that PD-textlogo question, but the source doesn't matter a bit in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-attribution

This is a general query. I have noticed a web site using Wikimedia images (and Wikipedia text) without acknowledging the Wiki source, and, in the case of pictures, its Wikimedia user uploader, though not me. I sent a message to the web master stating that the source should be mentioned, but to no avail... unmitigated misuse prevails. As a prolific uploader to Commons I am now having reservations over continuing, not because I don't want to give free use, but that it would be proper to assure appropriate attribution.

Questions:

• regardless of Creative Commons attribution level, are further users of our pictures fully obliged to acknowledge the Wikimedia and uploader source?

• if attribution is not mentioned by third party users, does Wikimedia have a mechanism to attempt this attribution for its many hard working charitable uploaders? (I can't think this cannot be the case as there would be no point in bothering to have attributable Creative Commons upload restrictions that are toothless... we might as well upload them to our own web sites or social networking sites to be abused)

• if Wikimedia doesn't provide this obviously-needed protection for its volunteers, what is the tightest form of Creative Commons licence allowed, that gives free use but has the most restrictive conditions, to perhaps compel attribution?

• if Wikimedia absolves itself over protection of its volunteers' images, what kind of wording can be suggested to add to the Image summary stressing the necessity of attribution?

• if Wikimedia is so lacking, what advice can be given to uploaders to pursue for themselves the abuse of their images without what many volunteers would see as proper help from Wikimedia?

Acabashi (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no license that can "compel attribution", or compel anything else. Once your photos are on the Internet, anybody can potentially use them in any way they like. It would be the same if they were marked "all rights reserved". However copyright law makes use of copyrighted works without a license illegal, and a copyright holder can potentially take legal action against people who violate their copyright (although this may be restricted to a take-down notice in the USA due to DMCA). Personally I have no intention of taking legal action against anybody over my photos, and don't care about attribution, so I use CC0 to reflect this reality (and for other reasons). Others may decide that they don't want to take legal action against anybody, but still use a more restricted license so that at least law-abiding publishers (and those who will respond to complaints) will give them credit. --ghouston (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

On the first point, there’s no general legal obligation to credit sources. Some reusers need or wish to do so for provenance or verification; for others it’s a matter of courtesy. Even where the licence requires attribution, the WMF claims no ownership or credit for the content it hosts on behalf of the licensors. Nor will it directly defend contributors‘ rights in cases of licence violations by third parties (although its legal department may be able to offer some advice, assistance, or referrals). The most restrictive licence we allow here is CC-BY-SA, requiring not only attribution but that further reuse be licensed under the same terms. Nevertheless, as ghouston suggests above, to those who disregard intellectual property it makes no difference whether the licence says © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED or {{WTFPL}}.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Acabashi When Wikipedia's CC-By content is reused without attribution it is no different from someone stealing content from a newspaper, book, or museum. The rights of the copyright holder are violated in this case.

The Wikimedia Foundation provide no support in policing misuse. The Wikimedia community could someday provide policing and enforcement support, and this has been discussed, but there is no project which has ever been viable and which provides this support. I would like to see such a project established someday. Creative Commons likewise has no community which provides this support.

Most commonly, when a Wikimedia contributor writes to the organization which is misusing the content and requests for them to correct their error, then if they are a respectable organization, then they correct it voluntarily. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Pele Bicycle Kick

I am currently working on the Bicycle Kick article for the English Wikipedia. The famous football (soccer) player Pele performed an iconic bicycle kick (see image). This picture would be amazing in the Bicycle Kick article. Does anyone know if this image is copyrighted or in the public domain; if it is on the latter, what PD tag works for it? Thanks in advance!--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Uniqueness or greatness of events don't negate copyright status. If you can find someone who took a photograph of the event and is willing to license that photograph under a commons-compatible license, that would be amazing. Otherwise, various local wikis that allow for Fair Use, which is a copyright exception (actually a legitimized defense) in laws such as those of the US, will have to make do with local copies. Storkk (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this site and a few others, the photo was taken during a game against Belgium in 1968, and so is most likely going to be under copyright for a long time to come (assuming the game was actually in Belgium, it'll be under copyright until 70 years after the photographer's death). Revent (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question Revent! That is unfortunate news, but good to know.

I appreciate the response Storkk. I doubt that I can find someone who took a photo of the event.

Regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it was actually June 2 1965, and the game was in Brazil at the Maracanã. The photograph was taken by Alberto Ferreira, who died in 2007 at age 75. I think Brazilian photographs are 70 years from publication. So... 2036. For the U.S., 2061 unless it was published in the US within 30 days of it being published in Brazil. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're thinking of using it under fair use on a project that allows it, note that this version seems to be mirrored compared to other versions and other photos of the same moment. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Great information! Thank you, Carl and LX. I probably will not use it since I cannot establish a good reason for fair use. Other photographs are available that also do a great job in depicting the bicycle kick. If the Internet is still in existence (and Wikipedia as well) by 2061, I suppose the new editors will be able to make use of Pele's photograph (I am sure that he will still be considered a sports legend by then). Regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought he was already. Sorry my info was a bit off, I'm not a soccer fan, just tried to hunt down what I could. Revent (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Usvw logo.gif

Logo is licensed as "own work", but says that it is owned and sourced by USV Weitersfeld. This does seem more likely to be a non-free logo than something created by the uploader.

File:Usv-weitersfeld kampfmannschaft-herbst2010.JPG also was uploaded by the same uploader, but once again the author and the source of the image are listed as USV Weitersfeld. No OTRS permission is provided, so no way to tell for sure if this was taken a photo taken by the uploader or was taken from another website.

For reference, neither image is currently being used in any Wikipedia articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. Tagged with "no permission" and "request for deletion". As this contributor is not active, there is little chance that a permission is received unless someone else take care of it. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

FoP in UAE

Aloha everyone. Do we any news about FOP in UAE? Reason is, we have a few DRs waiting to be processed. See: Commons:Deletion requests/2015/06/23. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 17:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Hi, I wish to upload a picture taken by a photographer who has directly given me the file, it is therefore not present on the internet and I cannot put any URL as a source... What should I write in the "Source" section? Moreover, the photographer allows me to upload this picture on Commons, is that okay if I simply write ©Name of the photographer? Or does he need to grant me a specific license? I suppose he does but which template should I then use? Thank you very much,Wikipediaval (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC+7)

Hi, Yes, the photographer needs to grant a free license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA is the best for pictures). As the source, add "given by <photographer>". Most importantly, you need to send a permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (see COM:OTRS for details). Regards, Yann (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Are those files DM

Hello,

There is an OTRS-ticket for the following files:

• File:Customer browsing the shelves at Aboriginal Studies Press bookshop.jpg
• File:Shelves of titles at the Aboriginal Studies Press bookshop.jpg

There is a valid release for the photographs but the photograph contains several bookcovers which of course have a copyright of their own. I am not sure if those covers are DM or not. More opinions? Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I would think they are, they covers themselves (or really, the copyrightable portions of the covers, since parts of some are just 'generic') aren't really the focus of the images... none is specifically the central object, they are not in sharp focus, and are each 'individually' of such low resolution that you wouldn't be able to usefully extract them. I think the thing to keep in mind about something like this is that in the case of each 'individual' copyrighted work that is included, removing it would not itself affect the subject matter of the image... removing them as a 'set' would, but that indicates the subject matter is the scene 'as a whole', not any particular component. So yes, de minimis, IMO. Revent (talk)

Thank you, I mared the files as permission confirmed and linked to this discussion in the file discription so everyone can decide for him/herself f they agree or not. Natuur12 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I upload an image when the museums states "no known copyright restrictions"?

I want to upload an image from a public museum's web site, which states "no known copyright restrictions" and the article is ~2000 years old. Which copyright template/license should I use? --Happyseeu (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think the images on that site are free; the copyright information is for the depicted work itself. See the museum’s permissions-request page. In general photos of three-dimensional objects incur their own copyright, in addition to any that may belong to the subject.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In general the phrase does mean "public domain" (at least how Commons uses that term). The phrase originated with the U.S. Library of Congress as a more accurate description than "public domain", and is used as the main phrase at Flickr Commons which many museums participate in (and those can be uploaded) -- but I do not see the Portland Art Museum there offhand. I'm not entirely sure what the phrase means on their website -- the object itself is certainly public domain, but the photographs would have copyright unless licensed or explicitly given up. It is entirely possible the photos are a work for hire and thus the museum has the right to give the photos away, but... I'm not sure if that is what is meant. So there is some doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked around their web site, and saw this:

CULTURAL LICENSES AND THE WEB

If you see a thumbnail image and a copyright statement that reads “© artist or other copyright holder” or “© unknown, research required,” it means that the artwork is protected by copyright or that further research is required. If you see the words “no known copyright restrictions” in the caption for an artwork, this means that we believe it to be in the public domain and it is okay to use.

So that means the museum believes it's in the public domain. --Happyseeu (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In context all I think that means is that they believe the artwork is public domain, so they’re able to grant permission to use such a photo in their “Remix“ contest. That doesn’t imply the images are freely licensed to be republished, modified, or used for other purposes.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Contact the museum and ask for clarification - 503-226-2811 | info@pam.org - if you email and get a useful enough reply, you can forward it to, or better yet have them email directly, OTRS. See Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries first.--Elvey (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Old photos with unclear dates

I've been expanding the wikipedia article on Blagdon Lake and came across a set of images on flickr (see https://www.flickr.com/photos/hairnicks/sets/72157632055767067/ ) showing the construction. Construction of the reservoir was between 1898 and 1905 however no dates are given for the original images. The flickr page says the images were from (but not explicitly taken by) someone who "died recently", however I'm not sure of the ownership or copyright status. Would they be allowed on commons under PD old or similar licences?Rodw (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If this is the first publication, then almost certainly no. They would have had to be *published* a long time ago for that. If this is the first publication, they are probably still under copyright of some form -- if the author is known, the copyright lasts that person's lifetime and 70 more years in both the UK and the US. If it is possible to figure out which ancestor took them, then that would be the basic term. If the author is unknown, the U.S. term is the earlier of 95 years from publication, and 120 years from creation, so we aren't there yet, unless they were actually published around the time they were taken. For the UK, the basic term with an unknown author would actually be expired (70 years from publication, but if not published within 70 years, then 70 years from creation, since these were photos taken before 1957, and that would be expired). Unfortunately... if this is the first publication, in either case (known or unknown author) then in the UK it is either under copyright for that regular term, or subject to a 25-year "publication right" which occurs when a work is first published when it is no longer covered by either of the regular copyright terms. So, if this is the first publication, it would most likely be under some form of protection in both the UK and the US. The only chance would be to identify the author, and show that the photos were put on Flickr when it was still within 70 years from when that person died, but is now beyond that term -- that would then be beyond the regular terms, plus avoid the UK publication right. If these were published a long time ago, then the situation would probably change, but it sounds like these were private photos until put up on Flickr a few years ago so I'm guessing they weren't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

OK Thanks for your advice.Rodw (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Licence switch

A donor licensed some images Public Domain and a bot said " Note: Creative Commons has retired this legal tool and does not recommend that it be applied to works. It is recommended you use

instead. PDmaybe-icon.svg This legal tool may not be effective or applicable in non-US jurisdictions.

So I got the licence in Flickr changed "some rights reserved". How do I fix this? Do I upload the images again under the new licence and ask for the old ones to be deleted?

Sorry, confused, I seem to have called up a template but I hope it all makes sense. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think you could just change the license on the Commons image pages and add {{flickrreview}}.--ghouston (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Thank you, Eddaido (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Photograph of Miners' banner

The wiki page on Jock Purdon ends

Purdon was featured on the Channel 4 Everyman TV series; six of his songs appear in Bert Lloyd's definitive collection of pit poems and songs, Come All Ye Bold Miners and he published a radical album of poems and songs entitled Pitworks, Politics & Poetry. In 2004, the Cotia banner (subject of one of Purdon's songs) was remade and carried to the Durham Miners' Gala with pictures of Purdon and fellow miner and folksinger Jack Elliot of Birtley on the back. The banner was unfurled by Tony Benn, who was an admirer of Purdon's poetry and songs.

I have a photograph of the Cotia banner referred to which I took earlier today. Would it be in order to upload it? I am thinking of the copyright of the banner's artist, not my rights. The picture was taken on the street in Durham and is partly obscured by people standing in front of it. R Cornwell (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This one? It looks like it would need a license from the artist. --ghouston (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that is the right photo... partially obscured, and such, do not matter as the banner itself is the object of the photograph (so no de minimis claim would work). It's a 'recreation'... unless it can be shown to be substantially identical to the historical original (and not a reinterpretation based on a description) then the modern artist holds a copyright in it (this is also assuming that the original itself would have an expired copyright, which is not entirely clear). We need copyright permission from both the photographer (which does not seem to be an issue) and the creator of the banner itself. Revent (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Laws that apply to an old image from Barre de Saint Venant (France, 18th and 19th century)

I'm trying to illustrate some articles on spanish project about Adhémar Jean Claude Barré de Saint-Venant and some of his equations and maybe others articles on other projects. Given Barré de Saint Venant death in 1886, most of the images found from him had many years but I'm not sure exactly how many.

Some of the images that I found are in sites like those:

• Site one with one the image
• Site two with four images
• Site three with one image
• French publication that use some of these images

All of this images looks to have near to 100 years or maybe more, but I'm not sure about the source or the laws that apply. Specially about French law because Bárre de Saint Venant born and died in France during 19th century and maybe all these images are under French law.

Thanks in advance for your help, --Tecsie|(Talk) 19:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think they are all in public domain everywhere. Ruslik (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ruslik0. But, How I prove it?. There must be a specific law, sentence or something that state that.--Tecsie|(Talk) 23:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

French law is 70 years after the death of the author (i.e. the photographer). For photos that old, it is slightly possible but highly unlikely that they are still under copyright. If they were published anonymously, then the {{Anonymous-EU}} tag can work, though in many EU countries it is hard to prove that, especially when the information about the original publication is unknown (rather than known to be anonymous). The first one (and the first two images on the second link) I have seen credited to the Académie des Sciences (which he was a member) but that does not identify the author. I do see it published here as well, an 1893 French book (and it's an engraving, not a photo, for what it's worth), though without any attribution that I can see. For works that old, people often just put {{PD-old-70}} on it, since that is most likely correct. It sounds like the man was 73 years old in 1870; even if the photographer was in his 20s at the time the odds they died before 1945 are extremely high, enough to assume that status I think. Definitely for photos before, and probably for a little while after. So, use whichever tag makes the most sense. They should all be {{PD-1923}} for the U.S. case. The later photos get though it can get a lot less certain... even 1900 photos really aren't there. There is no explicit rule of thumb for "images older than XXX years"; more of a feel that it's beyond a reasonable doubt, given the known facts and the laws involved. If better information comes to light, it can be revisited. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Per here, the fourth picture on the second link is of a Victor du Buat, a different person. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(Solved) After following the guidelines of Clindberg about the publications of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (National Library of France) in the digital library Gallica. I found a better image in this site (and maybe the source of ones that I mentioned before) that was released to the public domain under the French and US law. Finally, I uploaded a retouched image here using the templates: {{PD-GallicaScan}}, {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-1923}}. I feel that the template {{PD-GallicaScan}} is more a source or reference that a license, but it's useful and gives some trust about the law behind the process. --Tecsie∇^(Talk) 16:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Gallica Reference link

Full bibliographic record Title : Les travaux publics et les ingénieurs des ponts et chaussées depuis le XVIIe siècle / A. Debauve,... Author : Debauve, Alphonse (1845-1906) See only the results matching this author. Publisher : Vve C. Dunod (Paris) Date of publication : 1893 Subject : Ponts et chaussées (administration) -- Histoire Search all documents with this subject Type : monographie imprimée Language : French Format : 1 vol. (443 p.) ; in-8 Format : application/pdf Copyright : domaine public Identifier : ark:/12148/bpt6k54759528 Source : Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Philosophie, histoire, sciences de l'homme, 8-LF93-54 Relation : http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb34066136w Text mode available Theme : Public administration Gallica online date :10/02/2009

Très bien. J'avais cherché, mais sans rien trouver, une image dans Gallica. J'ai importé une version plus grande : File:Adhémar Jean Claude Barré de Saint-Venant.jpg. Comme l'original est en JPEG, l'importer en PNG n'apporte rien. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of the National Defense Force.svg

I have a question about this image's licensing. It's licensed as "own work" by the uploader, yet the logo on the flag is licensed as non-free on Wikipedia by the same uploader. The flag essentially seems to be the non-free logo on a black background. The flag does represent the one actually used by the group as shown here. Why isn't the group's flag also considered to be non-free? Can a free image include non-free elements or does everything in the image need to be free. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My 2¢: Well, the logo is a JPEG. The flag is an SVG - far more original. See the discussion above this one. Perhaps the latter should be marked as a derivative; I'm not sure. Does that help? --Elvey (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Popov Ivan Vasilyevich.jpg Deletion

Why was it deleted this image? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Popov_Ivan_Vasilyevich.jpg It was a photo for identification. It was made by an anonymous photographer in the 1930s. Obviously, the author will never be known. In Russia works published prior to 1 January 1943 may also be in the public domain if: 1: author died before January 1, 1944... 2: they were published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943, and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years. -This case --Yokki

The person who closed the discussion seems to think that there was no evidence that the photographer is anonymous. Most of the text in the discussion is in Russian, so I can't read the text. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama question: Bernar Venet statue exhibited on Budapest

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Budapest5-marc15ter-uj-2015-szobor.jpg is a deletion request of a photo of a Bernar Venet statue exhibited on Budapest. Does Freedom of Panorama exception for Hungary allow that this photo is freely licensed? Please do not reply here, reply on the deletion request page instead. – b_jonas 20:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lukeyhano

This user uploaded several screenshots of Wikidata-related tools (by Magnus Manske, for example) but neither with proper source nor taking the original software's licenses into account. --Ricordisamoa 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

fix bogus boilerplate

Seeking views on what's a better fix: this and the previous edit (this) or this new idea of mine which I also support and have made several times with no complaint or revert since Oct 2014. I'm going to make some ~400 edits with VisualFileChange and wanted to get consensus that the new way is as good or better than the old way.

There is already consensus here for the former change as well as outside sources that we're doing the right thing: http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1343866505906674&date=%400&fromform=1 - the WashPo issues this: "Correction: An earlier version of this blogpost stated that it violated the White House’s copyright." http://www.wired.com/2009/05/flickr-creates-new-license-for-white-house-photos/

I did pilot runs that edited ~42 files. See my edit history; summary: "Pilot run..." --Elvey (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Your first link is grammatically incorrect I think; the previous version read better (and is the text from the source). Secondly, why are we adding licensing information to the description field? The White House photos are basically consistent with {{PD-USGov}} and {{Personality rights}}. The text from the White House could be put in the licensing field I guess. Is that the main issue? That the text comes over as part of the description with the Flickr upload tools? If possible it seems best moved to the Licensing field, and the {{Personality rights}} tag added somewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I think you are correct, both that the text is being copied over from Flickr by the upload tools, and in everything else you wrote. Revent (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Cirt's comment at User_talk:Elvey#File:Bill_Nye.2C_Barack_Obama_and_Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_selfie_2014.jpg (and my edits I'm now making to my OP) makes things clear. In other words, I think that with my new fix, each file becomes consistent with {{PD-USGov}} and {{Personality rights}}, as well, while with the original (2-edit) fix of Cirt the file becomes consistent with {{PD-USGov}} and with no fix, it is Inconsistent with {{PD-USGov}}. --Elvey (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As for grammar, I'm quite in agreement that the previous version read better (and comes from Flickr), but it conveyed the wrong thing. The new version is not easy to read, but I am quite confident it's grammatically correct, and conveys the right thing. --Elvey (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Except their disclaimer is not wrong. I'm guessing your edit (and Cirt's reply) was a misinterpretation of "non-commercial" thinking it pertained to the copyright license, when it in fact was in relation to other rights. There is no need to change their text, though it would be good to make more clear it relates to personality rights. Outside of Wikimedia, the term "public domain" is often used to indicate there are no serious rights impacting use (including trademark or personality rights), as opposed to strictly copyright status, the way we use it due to our focus on the copyright. There is such a thing as trademark "public domain" as well, when a trademark lapses, etc., though we tend to ignore that here. So yes, such images are "public domain" (in Commons terms) since there is no copyright protection, but not "public domain" in the wider sense because there is no model license and therefore personality/publicity rights apply in full. I can definitely see explaining their restrictions more, and moving that blurb out of the description field. But I cannot see adding PD-USGov text to the description field, or changing the blurb's wording in that way (meaning this edit). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there's no copyright restriction, there's no basis for the blanket restriction that "the photograph may not be manipulated in any way". As I read and parse the text, I find that there is no qualifying clause that makes it (the restriction) apply only to protect personality rights. There are no other rights (such as personality or privacy rights) that can make such a blanket restriction enforceable. That's why the disclaimer is wrong. That problem is what I think my edits fix, by changing the blanket restriction to one that is narrow - that only bars manipulation that would violate personality rights. As I see it, either the disclaimer is wrong, or the WashPo is wrong, Carl. Perhaps we just disagree on how to parse the text. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether the disclaimer is wrong if that doesn't convince you. But that's not so important because I think we agree that it it's bad that it's not clear whether, as written, it relates to personality rights" and can move forward on that basis, per Revent's comment, below. --Elvey (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The basis would be things like personality rights and en:misrepresentation; it's much different than "no basis". Copyright is just one of many possible restrictions which can exist. Yes, it's worded too strongly and too vaguely in my opinion, but "manipulated" has a very different connotation than any old derivative work -- it seems similar to the moral rights type restrictions elsewhere (which do not allow similar changes... e.g. German law is The author shall have the right to prohibit any distortion or any other mutilation of his work which would jeopardize his legitimate intellectual or personal interests in the work. To me, manipulation is akin to the distortion mentioned there, but more for the pictured person rather than the author (though that right does exist in other countries, since in many countries that is the author's explicit moral right, separate from the economic right, and Flickr is a global audience not just U.S.). If a manipulation qualifies as misrepresentation then it could be issues in the U.S. as well. That blurb most definitely does not belong in the image descriptions... I'm OK with removing it, or moving it to the Licensing section with some sort of obvious indication that it has nothing to do with the copyright. I'm not disagreeing with your basic approach in this case, but just saying that I think you are incorrect in some of your original assumptions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly a derivative work is a form of manipulation. Manipulation has more than one meaning. Look it up. One meaning is simply "alter", with no negative connotation, so the wording is a blanket ban on any derivative works. I'm far from the only person to see it as such. If the text just barred the form of manipulation you speak of, I'd be fine with it. See my new comment below. --Elvey (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but there is no copyright as the basis, so it would have to be other rights. There have been discussions on the moral rights clause before. Some FoP laws even say the work cannot be "altered" in those situations -- we have taken that to be related to the moral rights, and not derivative rights (since we would care about derivative works of the photo). Commons has a narrow focus on copyright given our policies, but the person writing that blurb does not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

President of the United states lacks the authority to overrule Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code neither does Flickr. Only congress can pass a law to change this. I can replace the CC template with White House one on all relevant files if that is OK with everyone. I am confused why we add a disclaimer manually when the template is right there... -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, hope my clarifications and edits to this page clear up the confusion. We (Cirt) added it manually after removing the bad disclaimer. I think you're misunderstanding what the Wired article is saying Flickr did. --Elvey (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing that Flickr did had any affect on the 'actual' copyright status of White House images, they merely made it technically possibly (six years ago) for the White House to 'not' claim a bogus CC license applied to the images they posted on Flickr. We should have never acknowledged the incorrect CC claims made on Flickr in the first place. I don't think anyone else here is confused about that, but instead about the point of the change you want to make, as it is not any more 'correct' than the original version. The correct answer is what Cirt said on your talk page in October... "The best way to remedy this is not to include the disclaimer text from Flickr from that account, and simply include the "PD-USGov" tag, as that's the official copyright license for those images" (and in some cases, a 'personality rights' template). Revent (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I too am totally ignoring Flickr component. Legally these files were in the public domain the moment they were taken. Only congress can change Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code by changing the law and even then that would start applying after some future date. Since that isn't the case talking about the CC license is kind of moot IMHO. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

とある白い猫: agreed. --Elvey (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fully agree with your first sentence, Revent. Happy to go along with your last sentence. --Elvey (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Elvey: A very careful parsing of your change shows that it does, indeed, have a slightly different meaning, as I assume was intended. The reason it's no more 'correct' is that it's not clear and understandable to reusers... you have to read it very carefully. Licenses should be clear, unambiguous statements of the work's status, and the templates have all been translated into multiple languages already. Thus, the 'correct' answer for such things is to use the templates, or if needed write new ones. Revent (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Preparing to go ahead. Since (correct me if I'm wrong; I hope I am) it would be quite difficult remove the boilerplate from the displayed metadata for each file, I would like to batch replace the copy of the boilerplate that's within the normally editable content with "some sort of obvious indication that [the boilerplate] has nothing to do with the copyright". Any suggestions for wording that does that? Thinking about it now. --Elvey (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thinking of putting in this: Because this image is in the public domain, it may be manipulated in almost any way. Manipulations that violate personality rights are not permitted, however. ; I think it's beyond VisualFileChange's abilities to alter metadata. (I couldn't get it to do so.)

Can a bot remove the boilerplate from the metadata too? IIRC, we have a bot that removes location data from metadata, so I think it's do-able. If so, we don't need to put in any new text. Anyone up for the task? Would the bot need admin rights? My ~400 past experience with requesting a bot to do this was not fruitful. So I will do what I can with a new notice and VFC if I don't hear back soon.--Elvey (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

On some imagss, I've used something like "The work is public domain from a copyright perspective, but other restrictions can still apply." Those were usually ones where insignia laws applied, but that could work too. Again, "public domain" has a different meaning outside Commons, so I would not use the phrase as casually there -- I would be specific that you mean only in relation to copyright, thus derivative works are allowed subject to other laws. There is one page at the Library of Congress on publicity and privacy rights. Maybe "The work is public domain from a copyright perspective, but other restrictions such as personality or privacy rights may still apply." I would also move such text and the blurb to the Licensing section, and take it out of the description. If you feel that removing the blurb altogether is better, instead of trying to explain it, that seems OK too. It seems to be added as generic boilerplate to all their images indiscriminately regardless of subject matter, where in many cases publicity rights may not be applicable. For example this. I don't think I'd worry too much about the metadata.... that is a little aggressive in removing re-use information which does come from the source. (It also means duplicate uploads; in the location situation that may be a privacy issue so it's a little more urgent to get rid of.) So perhaps just add a short note to the licensing section. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, no metadata editing to remove the blurb. I don't know how to be selective with VFC or move stuff to licensing, so I'll replace the blurb with the text we're honing in on, since in most cases, it'll remain in the metadata (unless someone beats me to it and does something more fancy). Thanks for the wording suggestion. I want to use (a form of) the word manipulated, so it's clearer . Merge/compromise wording ideas:

• (3)"The work is public domain from a copyright perspective, so while restrictions such as personality or privacy rights may apply, in general, manipulations are allowed." or perhaps
• (4)"The work is public domain from a copyright perspective, but publication of manipulated versions may be restricted if the edits violate personality or privacy rights." or perhaps
• (5)"The work is public domain from a copyright perspective, so publication of manipulated versions may only be restricted if the edits violate personality or privacy rights."

No need for links ( privacy rights )? --Elvey (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No replies, so I went with (3), slightly revised, to: "This official White House photograph is in the public domain from a copyright perspective, so while restrictions such as personality or privacy rights may apply, in general, manipulations are allowed." ~10% done.--Elvey (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Tweaked the boilerplate here and there as needed to handle different licensing statuses, e.g. cc-by-sa-2.0 but text barred manipulations.--Elvey (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Added color in a black-and-white photo of a public-domain work of art

This is a photo of a fourth-century wall painting and would normally fit the PD-Art tag. The university website that hosts the image says the photo was "painted so as to represent the original colors as closely as possible". The university-sponsored excavation that discovered the painting took place from 1926 to 1935, so I assume the black-and-white photo was taken then. There doesn't seem to be any indication of when the color was added. Would the added color meet the threshold of originality, or would the photo be public domain? If it's not public domain, would a black-and-white version of the photo be public domain? A. Parrot (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that the original B&W photo is in public domain. It depends on who was its author, when (if ever) it was published. Ruslik (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ruslik0: if the original photo were PD, would the recolored version be PD as well? A. Parrot (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If the recolouring is for producing a faithful reproduction or accurate restoration of the original’s appearance, then it won‘t incur any new copyright (that Commons policy recognizes anyway—in the UK and some other jurisdictions there’s a “sweat of the brow” provision; see {{Copyright claims}}). I think that would be the case here, particularly since the source is from the US, but a sufficiently creative or imaginative colorization would be considered equivalent to an original work. (Since the painting is two-dimensional, I expect the same would apply to the original b&w photo as well.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Tallinn

Could someone who has a rough idea about buildings in Tallinn take a look at Category:Photographs by Christopher Michel (check needed)? Buildings under 120 years old probably fail to meet our copyright requirements, so photographs of them may need to be speedy deleted. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Never speedy delete such files. The criteria are complex (age, originality, de minimis, etc.) so a proper DR is much better. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Images of XBT instruments - does PD-USGov apply?

The following photos relate to XBT (expendable bathythermograph) instruments. The question is, are any of the photos likely to be out of copyright as works of the US government?

• This image under the "Oceanographic Instruments" section of this NODC (National Oceanographic Data Center, part of the US NOAA) page. No specific credit for the image is given.
• This image and this other image on this AOML (Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory) page. The AOML is described as being part of the NOAA's OAR (Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research) in addition to being a federal research laboratory. Some of the AOML pages have a "Copyright © 2006 AOML. All rights reserved." notice at the bottom although the applicability of the notice seems unclear.
• This image on this NASA page. The image is credited to Robert Simmon on the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and in this case the probability of the image being a US government work seems quite likely.

--Gazebo (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going discuss your images out of order.

• With regards to xbt_render.jpg from Robert Simmon/NASA, this image is in the public domain and can be uploaded to Commons with the {{PD-USGov-NASA}} copyright tag. Robert Simmon is an illustrator employed by NASA. Commons hosts quite a few of his works.
• With regards to the images on this page at AOML, unfortunately there is not enough information to determine their copyright status. That page is part of the XBT Science site, a collaboration hosted by NOAA. The site includes contributions from scientists from around the world, many who are not US Government employees. In particular, the site itself was put together by Ricardo Domingues, who is an employee of CIMAS (Univ. of Miami). However, there is some good news. The NOAA Photo Library whose contents are PD unless noted otherwise contains some very similar images. In particular, Launching an expendable bathythermograph (XBT) on the MCARTHUR and Deploying an XBT (Expendable bathythermograph) can be uploaded to Commons with the {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} copyright tag.
• With regards to picture7.jpg from NODC's 50th Anniversary page, I'm not entirely certain of its copyright status since no author is credited. NODC does say that their site is PD unless otherwise noted. You might try contacting NODC User Services to see if they can provide you with more information about this photo. It is probably OK to upload to Commons with the {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} copyright tag.

—RP88 (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'd tend to say they are all OK. The AOML one has the most gray area, but the AOML appears to definitely be part of the NOAA. The website itself is an AOML/NOAA website. The site was put together by a Ricardo Domingues, who works at CIMAS (a joint venture between the NOAA and a number of universities, hosted at the University of Miami -- so it stands to reason that some NOAA employees would be there). The CV posted above seems to say he is a NOAA employee, and he has a noaa.gov email address, and links like this seem to indicate he is an NOAA staff member. This one sort of says he is employed by both (and his CV indicates he may still be getting his masters degree at Miami). So... a little inconclusive, but it doesn't mean he is the author of the photos, and the fact it is an NOAA website would seem to suggest that that particular content is done by the NOAA (one of the photos has an NOAA logo in the background). Stuff from the CIMAS website itself would not likely be OK, but that one seems probable. Google Images doesn't find any other copies of those photos, so they don't seem to be copied from elsewhere. There is a contact email address on the page, which could be used to clarify -- it does not seem as though the site paid stringent attention to copyright, at least as much as other NOAA pages (the notice there seems like boilerplate put in by website authoring software), so there is a little doubt. But I wouldn't personally vote to delete unless other information came up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. For now, I have uploaded two images as File:Rendering-of-XBT-Expendable-Bathythermograph.png and File:Launching-an-expendable-bathythermograph-XBT.jpg on Commons. (The second image shows an individual launching an XBT and therefore it seems that {{Personality rights}} may apply in addition to {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}.) The English Wikipedia has an article on XBT instruments but images are somewhat lacking; in one case, a non-free image that someone else uploaded was deleted after being judged to be replaceable (and rightly so.) --Gazebo (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

FoP in San Marino

It seems San Marino isn't listed in COM:FOP. There are a few pictures of sculptures from San Marino on Commons and I'd like to know if they're acceptable to host or if they're a copyright violation. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Also (somewhat unrelated), it seems that the copyright term for photographs in San Marino is 30 years from production, but that isn't reflected in {{PD-San Marino}}. I don't speak Italian, so I can't dissect their copyright law. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Parsix Artworks license

Can I upload Parsix artworks? Under what license? Parsix is a GNU/Linux distribution, licensed under GPL. −ebraminio^talk 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A GNU/Linux distribution, by the nature of the beast, is under a pile of licenses, including the GPL, LGPL, GFDL, Artistic, a dozen variants of BSD and MIT, etc. All I see at the link is a claim that the User Guide is under the GPL. A specific notice for the images would be necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

At least for artwork/wallpapers/parsix2.svg: <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/" /> and <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/"><cc:permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction" /><cc:permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution" /><cc:requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice" /><cc:permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks" /><cc:requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike" /><cc:requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/SourceCode" /></cc:License>. Their Bugtracker looks… very well maintained *cough*, otherwise I'd suggest asking there. Maybe the directee mentioned here can answer this. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you guys. −ebraminio^talk 00:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Permission

I want to use this image. Can I upload it to commons if I can find the photographer and ask him to send the permission letter to the OTRS team? Mhhossein (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can as with any photo. Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. The photograph prominently depicts other works, whose copyright holders would also need to be identified and contacted. I have to agree with the response at Commons:Help desk#Permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This photo shows people, not other photos. All those photos are just incidental and de minimis. Ruslik (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It shows people demonstrating with protest signs, and the protest signs they're holding up are significant – not incidental. A photo cropped at about half height would be fine. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@LX: So, same thing is true here. Shalit's picture is significant. Mhhossein (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But your assumption that "It is allowed!" is incorrect. There is no systematic human review of all uploads, so the fact that something similar hasn't been deleted doesn't mean that it is explicitly allowed. I've brought it up for discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@LX: Yes I see. Btw, is the same thing applied for this? I nominated it for deletion. Mhhossein (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can probably find tons of similar examples in the subcategories of Category:Demonstrations and protests. It's one of those things that people tend to overlook – assuming they even look at the files; a lot of users who bulk transfer files from Flickr clearly never even bother to do that. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Lego minifigures of Discworld

Moved from Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Lego minifigures of Discworld: Achim (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

How can this images be free? Per COM:TOYS Hangsna (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If a minifigure is part of a permanent public display (i.e. in a museum) and the display is located in a country where freedom of panorama applies to artwork (such as the UK), then a photo of the minifigure and/or the display would likely be acceptable on Commons. Otherwise, assuming that a minifigure is copyrighted and has not been released under a free license by the copyright holder, then a photo where the minifigure is not de minimis can not be kept on Commons. For the photos in the Lego minifigures of Discworld category, the minifigures are the main subject of the photos and so de minimis is unlikely to apply. From their descriptions, it appears that the minifigures were photographed at the Pyrkon fan convention in Poland. FOP in Poland apparently applies only to permanently installed works and only in certain outdoor settings, so it is not clear that FOP would cover these photos. Unfortunately, it is easy for users to upload images to Commons without realizing that the images are copyright-infringing, and sometimes such images go unnoticed for a long time. --Gazebo (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm the author of those pictures. If you need any more information - please contact me. Klapi (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that the Discworld minifigures were photographed at the Pyrkon fan convention in Poland, determining as to whether the photos can be kept on Commons would mean knowing as to whether the minifigures were part of a permanent outdoor display in a public location such as a garden or a square. According to COM:FOP#Poland, for freedom of panorama (FOP) in Poland to apply, the work being photographed must be "permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens." If anyone else is more familiar with the details of Polish copyright law, they may be able to provide more input. (For example, I do not know if Pyrkon has admission control or an admission charge, but if it does, those may affect whether the convention would be "publicly accessible" for the purpose of Polish FOP. On the other hand, if the Pyrkon event was held in an indoor building, it would seem that that would likely preclude Polish FOP from applying in any case.) --Gazebo (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licensing

Does the "Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licensing" of content have to be explicitly stated by the copyright holder or the source of the content or can it be assumed that no claim of copyright means that the content is automatically freely licensed?

The description for File:PDKI.png claims that the image is licensed as "Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International", but I cannot find anything indicating this is the case on the group's official English website given as the source of the image. In fact, I can't find any copyright information at all on the website.

File:YBŞ.png is also licensed as "Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International", but there is nothing on the sourced website to indicate this. Moreover, the source is blog which might not actually be the original source for the image. The following images are also sourced from the same blog as above and also licensed as "Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International":

• File:YRK.png
• File:HPJ.png
• File:YPJ.png
• File:YPG.png
• File:HPG 01.png
• File:YJA-STAR.png

Some of the above images may be simple enough to fall beneath the threshold of originality, but not sure how or if that would affect their current licensing.

Finally, File:HPŞ.png is also licensed as "Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International", but it says "© êzîdîPress - 2015 | All Rights Reserved" at the very bottom of sourced webpage which would seem to contradict the claim of "free licensing".

Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted material first published elsewhere without a free license, and without a license from the copyright holder confirmed through COM:OTRS, can be nominated for deletion. --ghouston (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Ghouston. I think that advice clearly applies to File:HPŞ.png since it's sourced from a website which is claiming "All rights reserved". What about the other files? I cannot seem to find anything on their source pages which indicates their copyright status. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

By default, if the work is copyrightable and there is no license, it's the same as "All rights reserved". If the copyright holder hasn't given a license, it shouldn't be on Commons. --ghouston (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ghouston for the speedy reply. I have tagged File:HPŞ.png with {{No permission since}}. Would you suggest doing the same for all of the other files or should they simply be nominated for deletion per COM:FFD?- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess they both have the same effect. I prefer the "Nominate for deletion" button since it also notifies the uploader and creates a place where they can dispute it. --ghouston (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

United Nations emblem

Is this emblem really not capable for Commons? https://twitter.com/unido Compare: File:Flag of the United Nations.svg only with text overlaid and high probably from 1985/86. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  11:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Football at the 2015 Pan American Games – Women's tournament

User:Laslovarga has uploaded some great photos to Category:Football at the 2015 Pan American Games – Women's tournament. Unfortunately although they are uploaded with a CC-SA-4.0 license they also have the disclaimer "The use of such (this) photographs for advertising or any other commercial purpose, in any medium or in any manner whatsoever, is expressly prohibited by TO2015 unless the prior written consent of TO2015 is acquired". I asked László here if he could clear up the apparent contradiction. I am not sure whether his disclaimer is ineffective, or whether the free use license is invalid. I hope it's the former (photos are really good) but suspect it's the latter! Please advise, yours etc. Målfarlig! (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#.22House_rules.22 and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Museum_and_interior_photography. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So... the licenses are okay then? Great, thanks Målfarlig! (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, basically the licenses are ok. Ruslik (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Ruslik, I think these files will have to be deleted unless Laslovarga is willing to remove the non-commercial restriction from his uploads. I, of course, agree that Commons is not a party to the contract between TO2015 and Laslovarga that requires him to limit his uses of these photos to non-commercial uses, so if he had chosen to ignore his agreement with TO2015 and chosen to not include the additional NC restriction we could accept these files. However, his addition of the restriction to the files is not compatible with the CC-BY-SA-4.0 licenses he has assigned to these files. We routinely delete files with this sort of additional restriction in the description (e.g. we delete files with CC licenses that the author places "for use on wikipedia only" in the description, etc.). —RP88 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys; Thanks for honest opinion and sugestions. If you decided to delete these files that is ok with me. If not great! I think that there is also room for our licencing improvement and made Wikimedia Commons easier place for making contributions. Anyway cheers for all. Thanks----László (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see where Laslovarga imposed any additional restrictions on the use of these files? I have read several times and I found none. Please, point me to exact words where Laslovarga as the copyright owner bans non-commercial use of these photos. Ruslik (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The statement on the file pages may still be inaccurate. It implies that 3rd-parties are somehow restricted from using the photos commercially, but I'm not sure that there are any grounds for thinking that. "The use of such (this) photographs for advertising or any other commercial purpose, in any medium or in any manner whatsoever, is expressly prohibited by TO2015 unless the prior written consent of TO2015 is acquired." If there is special legislation that would allow this claim to be enforced in a particular country, then it should be mentioned, otherwise I'd say the claim can just be deleted. --ghouston (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think these words were reproduced from the ticket. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi; No, those words are not from ticket. Also I have great pictures from other Pan American Games sport events as volleyball, handball, beach valleyboll, gimnastics and so on which I am villing to publish, release and share under CC, but I am waiting for decesion of you guys what is going to happen with these already uploaded pictures. Thanks----László (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Laslovarga, is it your intention to restrict these photos of yours to non-commercial uses? If not, can you comfortably say "I, as the copyright holder to these photos, am willing to authorize third-parties to use these photos for commercial purposes"? Because if you can't can't say that, then you shouldn't place a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license on your photos. —RP88 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

To be "free", copyright cannot be used to restrict commercial use of the photos. If you agree to a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license, then you are okaying the commercial use of the photos (provided you are named as the author and the license acknowledged, and if the latter license then derivative works must be licensed the same way). "Commercial use" does not mean in the sense publicity rights of any of the pictured people of course (those rights still apply in full), but if they say make a calendar using your photos, that would be OK. So, the question is what does that phrase mean. If you are making that a condition of the copyright, then that is a modified CC-BY-SA license, and is not free. If that was a part of your photographer's contract with TO2015, then technically it is OK, but you may be opening yourself up to contractual issues if someone else makes use of the photo (since only you are a party to that contract, and you made such use possible). You cannot enforce those terms on others unless you use your rights as copyright owner, which would then make that clause part of the copyright license, and make it non-free. That is why folks here would be more comfortable simply removing the clause altogether; if you are not comfortable with that, then we may indeed have a copyright issue. Now... I'm not sure if TO2015 inherently has some publicity rights over the event, and the clause is simply reminding people of that. Or if athletes need to sign over some of their own publicity rights in connection with the event to TO2015, and the clause is reminding folks of that. It's not clear what "commercial use" means... if that is copyright commercial use, it's not OK, but if it is {{Personality rights}} "commercial use" or trademark "commercial use" then we can host the images. Those uses are more when you make money based off a person's reputation or likeness (particular in advertising contexts), and may well be what they are referring to. If so, those restrictions are inherent even if someone in the stands took a picture, and simply adding the personality rights tag as a reminder is enough. If on the other hand this is something based on a contract you signed, and you are trying to impose those same terms on others, then it's an issue here. We'd love to have the photos -- they look terrific -- but we must be very careful about the copyright. We should not expose re-users to any situations beyond which would normally exist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

After all these explanations I think that is the best that all my pictures from Pan American Games set where ever is disclaimer, we just delete. I am sorry if I cause some confusion but I can not release, because of contract agreement, pictures under commercial use license. Previously, where only copyright holder was me, I released great number of pictures and many are used in different websites commercial and noncommercial, even Britannica and some museums, and I was perfectly ok with that. Thank you for effort and patient and please delete those picture. Sorry again.----László (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry (for our sake), but perfectly understandable ;-) Yes, it would be quite legal for Wikimedia / Wikipedia to use those photos, as our use is not commercial. But we are also trying to provide content usable in a great many other situations -- that is what "free" is. It is a self-imposed policy, but one that is at the very foundation of Wikimedia. That is why we do not accept the CC-BY-NC licenses (which you probably could do). Quite understandably, it is often hard for professional photographers to post images here, for reasons like that. Glad we came to the right result for you... along with protecting re-users, the last thing we want is for anyone to get into trouble over uploading images and trying to help the project ;-) Thanks for taking the time to answer here, and work it through. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your excellent contributions, but as you've requested I've nominated these photos for deletion. I nominated them for deletion by subcategory, so there are five DRs:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Football at the 2015 Pan Am – Women's tournament, Argentina vs Trinidad and Tobago
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Football at the 2015 Pan Am – Women's tournament, Brazil vs Costa Rica
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:2015 Pan American Games, Mexico vs Columbia - Laslovarga (90).JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Football at the 2015 Pan Am – Women's tournament, Canada vs Ecuador
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hamilton Pan Am Soccer Stadium

—RP88 (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Photos of Neil Armstrong's Apollo spacesuit on Flickr

Recently, Phil Plait, a writer for Slate magazine, took some close-up photos of the spacesuit that Neil Armstrong used in the Apollo program. The Slate article mentions that Plait has made versions of these photos available in an album on Flickr, and it appears that the photos on Flickr are licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0. At the same time, the Slate article appears to include at least some of the same photos, but with the credit line "Photo by Phil Plait, with permission of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum." (The reference to permission could refer to the aspect where, from what one understands, the spacesuit is in storage and not on public display and so it is likely the case that not just anyone can access or photograph it.) Also, there is one photo where Plait is posing next to the suit, indicating the possibility that someone else took that specific photo, even though the others were likely taken by Plait. Basically, the question is whether the Flickr photos can be treated as being freely licensed (i.e. Phil Plait is the copyright holder) as opposed to being a work-for-hire situation where Slate magazine or the Smithsonian is the copyright holder. --Gazebo (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Smithsonian is the copyright holder. The note is just that the Smithsonian gave him access. As to whether Slate has a copyright interest, that would depend on the contract between Plait and Slate. I doubt Plait is a straight employee; he has his own identity as the Bad Astronomy blog and would likely retain copyright. If not, then he should not be able to use that license on Flickr. So I think we can take the license at face value, and I would assume Plait as the copyright owner. (Even the one where he is pictured, he's likely at least a co-author.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have uploaded the images from the specified Flickr album. --Gazebo (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:SkyView Atlanta

Is this Ferris wheel a sculpture or just some machine not subject to copyright? --George Ho (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a utilitarian object not subject to copyright. I don't know about the lights; they probably aren't copyrighted in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Deep dream images

These are both my photograph taken at Southwark Market, but the second one has been processed through Google's Deep Dream. Any thoughts on whether this is a copyright problem? Apologies in advance to lovers of meat pies. --Fæ (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Was it using the code at github? Because that's explicitly open source, so the only question is license. I don't think it produces a copyright problem, but it's certainly clearer if it's the product of the open source code.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the Trippy filter at dreamscopeapp.com. In general... automated processing of something will not create any new copyrights, since it needs to be human expression to be copyrightable. However, when the processing involves inserting portions of other copyrightable works... that gets a lot cloudier. I don't see anything on the site which describes the source images for that filter and what the copyright is. The images provided with the deepdream source are CC-BY-SA-3.0 but that is clearly using something else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI the image was generated using https://dreamscopeapp.com, so open source. Even if the images fueling the transformation routine were non free, due to the focus of the image still being the original photo, I'm thinking that there is a strong de minimis case. --Fæ (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The resulting image is not a derivative work of the source code, so I don't think the license of the program itself makes much difference. The images in the Deep Dream database are another matter... in reading about it, the original application might have been to see if the computer program could identify dog breeds, so apparently it has a bit of a "dog bias" right now. The licensing of all that stuff is anyone's guess. It really should be derivative works technically, though de minimis or inherent fair use might cover things. It's basically impossible to track back to the original images used unless you get randomly lucky, so there's really no way to get a license (unless Google was very careful about licensing the photos which went into the database, which I'm guessing they weren't, and there's no real way to attribute either). Perhaps anyone who allowed photos to be used there basically had to permit usages in eventual images like this, so maybe there is an implied license. I do see a blogger thinks that in the UK the person who runs the photo through the engine (picking the filter) would actually get a copyright (in addition to the copyright on the original photo) but I doubt that would apply in too many countries. That is due to the UK's definition of "original". Overall... kind of a new situation that doesn't fit too well in copyright law, but it may be too extreme to disallow them on those grounds, as I'm not sure what else anyone could do. If Google claims copyright on all the images in the database and disallows commercial licenses on the derivatives, that would probably cause me to vote the other way, but short of that not sure we should disallow them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not ask Google legal through OTRS explaining free licencing etc? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 03:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible photo of author Allen Klein

Could a high-resolution version of this photo, which shows author Allen Klein at a public event, be uploaded if the photo itself were freely licensed? Or would there be issues with the multicolored clothing design that appears in the photo (the clothing design is not intended to be the main subject of the photo but was hard to avoid including)? --Gazebo (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I do see anything remarkable about his clothes. If we were not allowed to upload people wearing such clothes, the only people present on the Commons would be people without clothes. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is wpclipart.com a valid source for public domain files?

The website wpclipart.com is a collection of public domain files. Or, at least, it claims to be.

It' contents are not user-provided. The whole collection is a one man's work.

While I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of the site's maintainer, I do have a problem with the fact that he never cites where he got the images from, nor what makes each image public domain. He just claims they are all public domain images.

We have a lot of images from wpclipart.com right now. Can we really use photos like this or this without proper copyright information? --Damiens.rf 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Roberto Clemente one... I wonder if we had an image which has since been deleted -- this page credits Commons with an image which could be an original source of that one. This is a fuller version. It's possible we had an erroneous version and it made its way to that site, then came back in a different form. So... not sure that site is real evidence, though most of them probably are, but (like us) mistakes are probably often made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jim Morrison 1968.jpg

We need an admin who has fairly good understanding of U.S. copyright law to close the (rather contentious and complicated) discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jim Morrison 1968.jpg. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Lux romancing.jpg

Licensing claims the image is the public domain, but it looks like it is an advertisement that was taken from some kind of printed publication and the only source information provided is "Lux". The two actress featured in the ad are en:Audrey Hepburn and en:Barbara Rush were born after 1923 and according to the en:Lux (soap)#1960s: Romancing the brand this was an ad campaign from the 1960s so I am not sure how it qualifies as public domain.

For reference, the same licensing is also used for File:Lux logo.jpg, File:Lux youthful.jpg, File:Lux stars2.jpg, File:Lux buildingsoap.jpg, File:Early beginnings.jpg, and File:Printads 20s.jpg. No specific source information or specific publication date, etc. is provided for any of the aforementioned images so it's possible that all or at least some of them may not qualify as public domain, isn't it? They were all uploaded by Dominictang and the same licensing used for them all perhaps without much consideration being given as to whether it was correct to do so. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Advertising had an interesting requirement in the U.S. -- before 1989, print advertisements in magazines and newspapers etc. had to have their own copyright notice -- the overall copyright notice on the magazine or newspaper did not cover the ads, so if notice was missing, they were most likely {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}. One of them says printed in Toronto... but if that was early 20s, then 50 years from publication passed before the URAA date, so it's probably OK as well. If other ads were published in other countries before the U.S., it might be different, but I'm guessing those are all OK. It would be good to have sources (so we could date them better) and to put more accurate licenses on them, and the text is a bit fuzzy on a couple, but I think the ads are OK. I have serious doubts about File:Lux logo.jpg -- the surface of the letters themselves probably holds a copyright, even though just the outlines would be PD-textlogo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response Clindberg. Just for the sake of argument, suppose the copyright notice was originally provided, but was left off when the image was scanned. Is something like this possible? Would the copyright have been placed somewhere within the advertisement itself so that its removal could not occur without being noticed? These images had to come from somewhere. It's possible they were scanned by the the uploader, but its also just as possible they came from another website. Can we just assume a copyright notice was never provided and thus the images are PD by default? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

They would have to appear on the ad itself somewhere, yes. On the edges would be fine but not on other pages, etc. If the scans might have cropped it out (or photoshopped it out), that could be an issue. It's quite likely these were taken off the internet somewhere, but often enough evidence (for lack of notice anyways) is inherent in the uploaded image such that source is not absolutely required (though it's always helpful). If you think an ad is cropped too much to be able to tell, then that can be grounds for nomination for deletion. It was very rare for ads to have a notice though, especially earlier ones. Probably a judgment call as to whether enough of the ad is shown, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the further clarification Cindberg. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO's document published in Europe in 1972

Hi everyone, I would like to receive some help about the laws of copyright that apply to this document published by UNESCO in Europe in 1972. I know that many documents published in the United States before 1987 are in the public domain, because the organization do not seek copyright. But I'm not sure if that also applies to documents published in Europe before 1987.

For my specific purpose here in Commons I'm only interested in the first page of the document, not all document. But maybe someone else is interested in other pages. Thanks in advance --Tecsie∇^(Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Official texts (edicts of the government) including international treaties (like this document) are not protected by copyright either in USA or Europe. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Query re collage image

Is something like this valid? I'm not so sure - appears that all the images could be individually copyrighted even if the collage is user-created. Mabalu (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Gone ahead and nominated all user's uploads for deletion, as they appear to be commercial images or made using copyrighted images and there is little convincing evidence that the user was the author of the images. Mabalu (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Q-musiclogo.png

The licensing claims that this image is too simple to meet the threshold of originality, but I'm not so sure about the design of the "Q". It seems to be a little more than a simple geometric shape, plain text or just a matter of font style. Image seems more "non-free" than "free" in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Dutch law, but in the US, it's just a fancy font. See the W/crown on File:Best Western logo.svg that the Copyright Office declined to register for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about photographs of objects from museum collection

I am a curator at the Dutch National Liberation Museum 1944-1945 and in the months to come, I wish to provide Wikimedia with photographs of non-artistic historical objects from the 1930's to 1950's. I've added one example to start: File:German Stamps, 1 Million Mark and 2 Million Mark.JPG (I'm still working on the best possible set up, lighting, resolution, etc.) These will be my own photographs, so photographers copyright won't be an issue. However, how do I indicate that I also have permission from the museum to photograph these items? Of course a written document from our director is something I can manage, but I don't see a place to upload one and I would prefer not to have to make a new one for each item. Can someone tell me what should be in the permission notice to cover all my photographs, and where I should put this proof of permission? --NationalLiberationMuseum19441945 (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Permission should go to COM:OTRS, but in this case, I am not sure it is needed. At least in case of 2D items, like your file above, we don't give a copyright to the photographer. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. But you need to add more information: the date should be the date of the items, and the creator should be the creator of the items (i.e. in this case, the German State). I think a scan of these stamps would be better. See File:DR-D 1923 98 Dienstmarke.jpg for a good example. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NationalLiberationMuseum19441945, thanks for asking before uploading. You might want to read COM:LIC look through COM:CT. I would also suggest alerting volunteers at nl:Wikipedia:GLAM: Dutch Wikipedia has a very strong group working with GLAM institutions and they might be able to assist you with tools and advice. I would also look at some other uploads from cultural institutions, just to get a feel for usual format. But about your question: for museum images we mostly worry about the copyrights of the original objects. Copyrights of photographers mostly are only important in case of 3D works, like sculptures, and rely on {{PD-Art}} in case of 2D artworks, like paintings, although if we have them for 2D works we are happy to see them too. We do not need permission from the museum, however we often acknowledge partnerships with museum through templates like Template:Museum Catharijneconvent, which can also have additional OTRS template which links to a offline database of official permission documents from copyright holders, if the photographs were made by the museum photographers. So the main problem would be to determine if the "non-artistic historical objects from the 1930's to 1950's" might be copyrighted or not. Many are not copyrighted but I would also suggest reading Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. Also please consider using {{Artwork}} and provide as much possible links to museum online inventories if available. --Jarekt (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding file

The file I am trying to upload comes directly off of the website I am editing.

--Dmconner1 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your question? Can you provide a link to the website you are editing? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What CC license does YouTube apply?

YouTube allows people to tag videos with CC-By licenses, as here.

Seemingly YouTube does not designate a version of Creative Commons licenses.

If a video has YouTube's default CC-By tagging, what is the correct template to apply to that video? Do we just use the most current international CC-By license which Creative Commons is offering? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The license link goes to a youtube page at https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468 , which in turn links to CC-BY-3.0. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This YouTube/Google support page links to CC-by 3.0 which they call the "standard Creative Commons license". So you should use {{CC-by-3.0}} at Commons and probably provide a link to the support page too. Also, as there is no personal authorship claim for the video, please be sure to credit the MacLean Center as the author. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks, I see, this is the way to do it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Techcrunch vs Getty Images

Who is the copyright owner of this file? In the EXIF-date it says Getty Images for TechCrunch and on the Flickr-description it says Brian Ach/Getty Images for TechCrunch, but on Commons it only says Techcrunch. Can Techcrunch license the file how they want, or is Getty Images (part-)owners of the copyright? If so, is the entire Flickrfeed (with images from Getty) Flickrwashing? Do we need OTRS-permission from Getty to use the image, or is the Flickr-license from Techcrunch enough? Josve05a (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc seems to have passed a license review for CC-BY 1.0, when it is licensed as 2.0 on Flickr. Off-topic about this question, but just wanted to say that while at the same time pinging him to this discussion. Josve05a (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Getty Images act as a copyright agent rather than the copyright holder. If the photographer has released the image on a license suitable for Commons, then there seems no reason to ask Getty anything (... i.e. our "reasonable efforts" to check copyright can stop at checking the Flickrstream, which itself appears entirely legitimate based on contents, EXIF data, age and so forth). --Fæ (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

nah, i passed it cc-by, svenbot changed it to cc-by 1.0 and regarding the image, Its allowed as Fae mentioned above, techcrunch is a major organization so its obvious that they need to hire professional photographers to take images for them and behalf of them and we shouldn't read into the Exif too much since most of those are hard coded into the camera these photographers use and only a handful acknowledge for whom they are taking the images for...--Stemoc 01:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

File:American Fluid Company crate side.jpg

Is the logo in this photo too simple to be subject to copyright or does COM:PACKAGING apply? No date is provided so it's hard to determine if the logo is too old to still be subject to copyright. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd call it {{PD-ineligible}} plus {{Trademark}} --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Hedwig in Washington. Changing the licensing from "own work" to "PD-ineligible"/"trademark" is all that is needed and that COM:PACAKGING is not a concern? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that should do it. If someone thinks otherwise, they can always start a deletion request. Cheers, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Turner-broadcasting.jpg

Logo is perhaps simple enough to not be subject to copyright, but I'm pretty sure this .jpg cannot be claimed as own work and needs some source information for verification purposes. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that the logo is of US origin, then it seems likely that it can be treated as a case of {{PD-textlogo}} + {{Trademark}}. For a source, a search indicates that the image can be found on this TVWeek page and this FindSpark page, among other possible locations. (As a side note, given the nature of the logo, there might be something to be said for converting the image to PNG format, uploading it as PNG, and then tagging the JPEG version with {{SupersededPNG}}.) --Gazebo (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Gazebo. Can anyone convert the jpeg version license from "own work" to "PD-text logo" or does it have to be done by the uploader? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

From what one understands, anyone can change the info for the file. I have changed the source and licensing info accordingly, in addition to some minor improvements. --Gazebo (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gazebo. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Audio published in UK in 1937

This audio was first published in 1937 in the UK by the BBC. It is public domain in the UK, but perhaps not in the US. The deciding factor is whether or not it was still under copyright in the UK in 1996 and thus had it's US copyright restored by the URAA. Does anyone know what the UK's copyright term for audio was in 1996? The work would have been 58 years old and Virginia Woolf (the author) would have been dead for 55 years. I'm just trying to decide whether the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template should be added. Kaldari (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

After doing some more research it looks like the copyright term for audio recordings in the UK in 1996 was 50 years after publication (it is now 70), so it would have been public domain on the URAA restoration day and thus did not have it's copyright restored in the US. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not in the public domain in the US. All audio recordings are copyright under state law until 2067, whether or not they have federal copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems that this applies to US works, but I have some doubt it applies to foreign works as well? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's tangled and horrible and messy. The URAA explicitly restored pre-1972 sound recordings, so if they were restored but later lost U.S. copyright, that probably eliminated the common-law protection (which will otherwise last until 2067). But if they were out of copyright in the source country at that point, it's harder to say. Did the URAA terminate the common-law protection, or since it didn't apply to those works, maybe those works continued under common law protection. The Naxos case was explicitly about 1930s foreign recordings, and was about actions that occurred after the URAA, and they ruled that the common-law copyright protection still applied. So that would be the most direct indication -- such sound recordings are still under common-law copyright in the U.S. Sucks for us, but that appears to be the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not common law in most states, is it? In Nevada, the law says:

NRS 205.217 Unlawful reproduction or sale of sound recordings.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, it is unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation or association knowingly to:

(a) Transfer or cause to be transferred any sounds recorded on a phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or other article on which sounds are recorded onto any other phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or article; or

(b) Sell, distribute, circulate, offer for sale, distribution or circulation, possess for the purpose of sale, distribution or circulation, or cause to be sold, distributed, circulated, offered for sale, distribution or circulation, or possessed for sale, distribution or circulation, any article or device on which sounds have been transferred without the consent of the person who owns the master phonograph record, master disc, master tape or other device or article from which the sounds are derived.

2. It is unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation or association to sell, distribute, circulate, offer for sale, distribution or circulation or possess for the purposes of sale, distribution or circulation, any phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or other article on which sounds have been transferred unless the phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or other article bears the actual name and address of the transferor of the sounds in a prominent place on its outside face or package.

3. This section does not apply to any person who transfers or causes to be transferred any sounds intended for or in connection with radio or television broadcast transmission or related uses, for archival purposes or solely for the personal use of the person transferring or causing the transfer and without any compensation being derived by the person from the transfer.

4. A person who violates the provisions of this section shall be punished:

(a) For the first offense, for a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130.

(b) For a subsequent offense, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.

(2067 comes from Federal law which explicitly preempts state laws at that point.) I don't see why it wouldn't apply to foreign audio recordings just like US or Nevada ones. Other state laws may be worded differently, but I've looked up a few states and always found written law to this effect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

From what one understands, if a recording was fixed before Feb 15, 1972 and the recording was not subject to US federal copyright via the URAA and the recording does not incorporate any underlying copyrighted material (such as a copyrighted song), then the current policy is to accept the recording on Commons but to include a {{PD-US-record}} tag which talks about the possibility of states applying common law copyright. At the same time, because the {{PD-US-record}} tag is for recordings where federal copyright does not apply, it would seem that the tag should not be used for recordings for which federal copyright was applied via the URAA even if the recording was fixed before Feb 15, 1972. For the "On Craftsmanship" recording, assuming that there is no underlying copyrighted material, then it would seem that the {{PD-US-record}} tag would be applicable. --Gazebo (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

PD-US-record is basically wrong... common law protection is essentially everywhere, not just New York. Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-US-record is sort of still an open question, and the tag is at odds with WMF guidance. It would only apply if the common-law copyright was lost somehow, perhaps if you could show en:abandonment. This might be the sort of work where common-law copyright is less clear, though. For commercial music recordings we shouldn't be using it, but this is a little different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Common law is that which is based off of court rulings, and that sort of thing -- it's not explicitly written in laws passed by a legislature (which is statutory law, though those can create additional rights). Many states have statutory piracy laws, but common-law copyright can still exist without them. It's more a result of what feels "right" rather than defined lines, which makes it hard to guess what the result would be. And yes, it can differ by state. That said... the rulings have generally been over music recordings, where there is a definite commercial interest involved. It is definitely possible that common law copyright could "expire" if it had been given up somehow, or disused, or it would never really be possible to make money from it, or something like that. The above sounds like a recording of an interview... if there was a market for that sort of thing, and the BBC had been selling copies, I wouldn't touch it. Otherwise, it may be more of a common sense thing. If the BBC is not complaining about it, then it might be OK. There is very little black and white about it... owners do not need to take action to protect statutory copyright, but if they knowingly allow common law use, that might be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

File:North Carolina Office.JPG

Image is claimed as "own work", but I believe it is the same as en:File:AM North Carolina Office; Wikipedia.JPG which was uploaded as non-free to Wikipedia and File:AM North Carolina Office; Wikipedia.PNG which was uploaded to Commons by the same uploader (Joey Kinyanjui). The one uploaded to Wikipedia was deleted per en:WP:F7 and the one uploaded to Commons was deleted as a copyright violation. In addition, the quality of the image does not seem to be that of a photograph taken by the uploader, but rather that of image downloaded from the Internet and then re-uploaded. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A Google image search shows that the image is being used on this webpage for an office leasing company. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Anonymous work

I recently run into Template:Anonymous work which covers Anonymous PD work created more than 50 years ago. The "template does not apply to works from countries that extended the Berne Convention or that did not sign it. In particular, this includes the European Union, the United States, India, and Russia". So what countries of origin are covered by this template? --Jarekt (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a crude first pass at a list is: Algeria, China, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Monaco, Namibia, Qatar, Sudan, Swaziland, and Thailand. To construct the list I started with a list of the Berne convention signatories, removed the EU members + U.S. + India + Russia, removed countries with longer terms, and removed countries who could use this template but have better dedicated templates that mention anonymous works (like {{PD-Antigua and Barbuda}}, {{PD-Bahrain}}, etc.). —RP88 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably most 50pma countries (Canada, etc.). Though as mentioned some country-specific tags already mention anonymous works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I removed countries like Canada that have a better template from my list. The list of countries where it would be acceptable, if not best practice, to use this template is much longer. —RP88 (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

1944 French photograph

I have a lengthy discussion on my talk page about a photograph taken August 24, 1944 in France. Here are the details I could find out so far:

• Taken anonymously in Paris, France on August 24, 1944.
• Photograph given to wife of subject shortly later
• First published in the periodical Pays d'Alsace, issue N° 239 in May 2012

Since it was first published 2012, the (c) will extend until the end of 2082 (+70 years). Therefore neither {{PD-EU-unpublished}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} can be applied. Topping this with a cherry: Not free on URAA date either.

 Question Did I miss anything that would allow us to host this photo? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Where did you get +70 years? Unless the person who gave it to the periodical was the copyright owner, I don't think it was legally published, and thus any clocks starting on that didn't start.

On the US grounds, the URAA is only relevant for published works. Works unpublished in 2002 have a flat life+70, or for anonymous works, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is less.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

True, I just took what the user told me for face value (published with permission) I didn't think about the fact that it wasn't legally published. So, given the fact that this photo hasn't been legally published, the copyright should have expired 2014. That'll make the uploader and me pretty happy. Thanks for waking me up! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Haviland Thin Mints packaging

I have a picture of a Haviland Thin Mints package that I want to use for the purpose of illustrating the Wikipedia article. Would it be allowed here? Thanks! --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the design is copyrighted. You can upload it under the fair use clause on enwiki. Let me know if you need help with that. Best, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I figured. But would it be OK to crop out the copyrighted packaging and only upload the portion containing the mints? --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please do that! /Hangsna (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Taxidermy / stuffed animals

I'm a bit at a loss regarding the question of possible copyright protection for stuffed animals resp. taxidermy. There's currently an open DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:ENTREe museum.JPG. Even if originally protected, the mounted animal in question may be out of copyright by now (as it's apparently an exhibit from 1878), but I would be interested in more information regarding the general question. My first, spontaneous assumption in that discussion was that such a stuffed animal isn't protected by copyright - after all, the purpose is to show the animal in its natural appearance, and that appearence in itself is not a human work of creativity. However, Taivo then cited various deletion requests where a copyright protection for taxidermy was claimed - yet, in these DRs it looks more like personal opinions, no court decisions or law commentaries were quoted.

Researching a bit more, I have found an essay by Elcobbola where indeed some (US) court cases are quoted. However, both decisions rely on "artistic features introduced by the author". In one of the two decisions, a stuffed fish was denied protection, as it had no meaningful detail ... that is not commanded by the idea of a realistic fish. So, based on these two court decisions, it seems to me that (in the US) taxidermy is only copyrightable if the animal is prepared in a particularly "artistic" way; on the other hand, if it's an animal that just looks as we would expect that animal to look (such as the fish in Hart Scr v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Company Inc), then it's not protected. Now, what for File:ENTREe museum.JPG? Eulalie the elephant certainly looks a bit strangely glossy, but as it's an old specimen, this may have to do with the techniques of the time and ageing. Probably some kind of protective varnish was applied. Apart from that, it just looks like a regular young elephant to me. So, is it protected by copyright or not? Does it have "meaningful detail" that is not commanded by the idea of a realistic elephant? And to complicate matters, is it protected by copyright in France? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Was marked as "resolved" by Yann, but I'd like to keep this open for a bit longer - as the general matter isn't really "resolved", I'd say. Yann, you closed the current deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:ENTREe museum.JPG with "kept" and giving the reason "Made in 1878, so old enough", which may be true, but this leaves the more general question of the copyright status of stuffed animals unresolved. Regarding the "Eulalie" specimen, it's even possible that it would still be copyrighted, even if from 1878, as the taxidermist could have died less than 70 years ago - if, and that is the question, that stuffed elephant were copyrightable to start with. When I created the discussion here, I hoped for a bit more insight into that matter, but it seems that the question is very obscure ;-). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, fine for more discussion. I think it depends very much on the local laws. In some place, this will be considered as sculptures, in others, not. Then, it will be allowed if it is displayed in a public place, and there is a FoP exception. So, it is quite difficult to make a general rule. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Yann - this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If the final product is a work of art, then it is copyrighted. In taxidermy, often the intent is specifically to avoid making the animal look like art but rather to apply a technician's sense in preserving the body. Factors to consider are the pose, the intent in creating the piece, and whether the creator expressed their wishes about the piece. Generally I would say that taxidermy is not copyrighted because the usual intent is for it to be a non-creative process performed in a standard way. Pipes under a sink, a cake with simple design, and routine taxidermy are commonly no eligible for copyright whenever created in a place that only copyrights creative works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

To help keeping track of related deletion requests and practice, I created Category:Taxidermy related deletion requests as a subcategory of Category:Deletion requests by specific subject and added some of the DRs mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/File:ENTREe museum.JPG - not all of them, as e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rabbit.JPG apparently wasn't about a real stuffed animal. If you know of more taxidermy-related deletion requests, it would be great if you could add them to this category :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)