Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/03

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Copyright tag

I am uploading a logo on behalf of an organisation (NGO). Although the logo is free for anyone to be used by anyone, it cannot be edited- here is the link to the copyright (section 8): http://www.rarediseaseday.org/article/conditions-of-use

Could anyone advise me on what copyright tag I upload it under? Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by G.weston1 (talk • contribs)

@G.weston1: Unfortunately, images which can't be modified are not permitted on Commons under COM:L. We need to be allowed to make derivative works. (Also, why is modifying a logo trademark infringement?)Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is CCO 1.0 the same as CC pdm?

Is 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication the same as Public Domain Mark 1.0?

If not, how is the release by Armémuseum in this link to be treated? Luke (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

They are not the same. While the copyright holder explicitely dedicates his work to the public domain by granting a CC0 1.0 licence, Public Domain Mk 1.0 is just an indicator. It is "recommended for works that are free of known copyright around the world" [1] (my emphasis). In fact, the latter is highly controversial on Commons and should not be used as the only copyright rationale for uploaded images. If you'd like to upload media with a Public Domain Mk1 sign, you always need to state why they are in the public domain. Most often this is because of old age, but then you would have to research the author and/or first publication to determine the copyright term. That said, unless you can provide another solid public domain rational, please don't use Creative Commons PD Mk 1.0 content. De728631 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that clear and definite answer. The artist in question, Einar von Strokirch, died 1932-11-09. Does that mean that the images by him that Armémuseum "released" under Public Domain Mk 1.0 are not really "free" until 2032? Luke (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Sweden, like the rest of the EU, has a copyright term of "life of the author plus 70 years". So the local copyright has already expired. Because the paintings were still copyrighted in 1996 though, you need to check when they were first published to determine their copyright status in the United States (where the Commons file servers are located). Any of Strokirch's images first published anywhere before 1923 are free to upload with {{PD-art|PD/1923|deathyear=1932}}. Any later publications in Sweden are most likely copyrighted in the US for 95 years after their publication date. De728631 (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for a very clear answer. I will proceed ... Luke (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Unknown photographer

What are the rules when the caption reads "unknown photographer", and the collection has released the photo under Public Domain Mark 1.0? Also, in general, what are the rules for photos? Luke (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Very general questions and, without further information, I'm afraid the answer can only be "it depends"... A Public Domain Mark isn't a release as such, but only signifies that the person or organization who applied that mark believes that the work "is free of known copyright restrictions and therefore in the public domain". The PD mark may have been applied correctly, or in error. An example of a public domain work with unknown author (photographer) would be a photo verifiably first published in the United States prior to 1923 - as everything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the U.S., it doesn't matter who the photographer is. If it's a newer publication or not an U.S. work, things may become more complicated. Generally speaking, most photos will qualify as "works" protected by copyright in most countries (with the exception of photos merely reproducing another public domain, two-dimensional work, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag) - the general information at Commons:Licensing will apply. I hope that this is at least somewhat helpful :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyvio?

I've removed these from a Wikipedia article for Kristen French and I'm unable to really tell where these are from. From what I can tell, some of these look like they're probably taken from a television broadcast and/or a YouTube video, especially since a viewing bar is visible in File:Ssd.png. It's extremely likely that the rest are taken from news articles, given that this image currently used on the article cites this as its source. Here are the images in question, which are tagged as their own work.

I think the editor means well, but isn't really aware of copyright on WC. I'm going to ping the uploader (@Kittykat6354: ) in this discussion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that these images are suspect. You may consider opening a deletion discussion. Ruslik (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Соха.JPG File:Денис Бодров.JPG File:Alexandr Loginov.JPG

These three hockey game photos was uploaded as 'own work' but there is little in the camera detail. It does not seem like someone took a picture on the camera, it's more like TV-broadcast screenshots. Is it possible to verify the origin these files? Mit-mit-mit (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

archival document

I've got a question concerning a file I'ld like to upload in the Commons, but I'm not sure whether it is free content. It is a document composed by Greek revolutionaries in 1821. A copy of the document is saved in the archive of the Foreign Office and I found its photo in a book published in Greece in 1977. The name of the photographer is not mentioned in the book. Would the scanned image of the page of the book containing the document's photo be considered a work created in 1821 or 1977? Or, is it perhaps under FCO copyright? I've gone through the FAQ and the copyright policy, but I haven't managed to detect a provision dealign specifically with archival content. With many thanks in advance for your help, Ασμοδαίος (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reproduction of 2D-documents does not create copyright in the reproduction. So you can upload the image and use {{PD-scan|PD-old-100}} as license tag. In the information template you give the document as of 1821 and name the book from 1977 as source. --h-stt !? 14:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response! Ασμοδαίος (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

US Air Force

So, I just uploaded a US Air Force image from Flickr. The image is File:160211-F-VE588-926 (25130351265).jpg. The license from Flickr is CC-BY-NC-2.0, which is not compatible with Commons. However, since it is an Air Force image, it should be PD-US Air Force. The image has a known military ID and is also located here on the Air Force's media site. So, which license does this actually fall under? I'm asking before I upload a bunch more of these images from the flickr page. Elisfkc (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It falls under {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} (which is what is being used now). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks. Elisfkc (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the Flickr warning. These US government organisations should really know they cannot restrict their work like that but they do, probably due to ignorance of US copyright law. Sometimes you can find the same image on their own website and link to that instead but it can be just too much trouble. Ww2censor (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've actually just overwritten this file, with the version (at the same resolution) from the DVIDS website... the Flickr version has been compressed by Flickr (a lot), and had banding, while the DVIDS version is actually intended to be 'print quality'. The DVIDS page also correctly indicates that it's PD.

If you don't like the change, feel free to revert me, and I'll just upload it separately... the colors are a bit more intense in the Flickr version, but I don't actually think it's in a 'good way'. Revent^talk 19:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Can I use a web-site's photos

I have seen a web-site which has some photos I would like to use in Wikipedia. I emailed the organisation and they replied:

"We are happy for you to use any of our images so long as they are credited and linked to us."

Does this mean I am allowed to upload the images to WPCOMMONS and then to WIKIPEDIA? Thanks in advance for help. DrChrissy (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Unfortunately, that's not a specific enough permission statement for us... please see Commons:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder for directions on what you should ask the owners to send to OTRS (this is assuming that the website is not itself freely licensed). A link to a specified URL can be a required term of a CC license (it's in section 3 of the licenses themselves).

If the intent of the copyright owners is only to give permission 'for Wikipedia', and not freely license them for anyone to use, then they can't be on Commons, though they might be uploadable at whichever Wikipedia locally. Revent^talk 19:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

THanks very much for this. Very helpful. I will clarify with the web-site owner. DrChrissy (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright for books or printed official publications?

moved from: Commons:Village pump#Copyright for books or printed official publications?

What kind of copyright exists for books, or more specifically for official government publications without identified author? In this case Swedish army instructions and manuals, issued by the Swedish department of defence. Luke (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In Canada, First North American Rights belong to the publisher for the first year after publication. After that they belong to the author. I believe it's free after 50 years after the death of the author. Hope this helps. I am not sure about military publications. Search out a Swedish User or Admin and ask them. WayneRay (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Sweden seems to say they would be public domain: "Governmental laws and ordinances, decisions and statements published by Swedish authorities, and official translations thereof, are not copyright protected. (Upphovsrättslagen 9 §)" If you want something more definitive (including whether that covers these particular materials) you might better ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, which is where the people most knowledgable about copyright tend to hang out. - 17:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyvio or OTRS-ticket needed?

It seems to me that the files on recent artworks] uploaded by User:Vent des Forêts contain a series of copyvio's. Or should OTRS-ticket be needed?. Can someone take a close look at that. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If a photo shows a copyrighted artwork and was taken in France, where there is no Freedom of Panorama, then it should be deleted because it is unlikely that the photographer can secure a permission of the artwork's copyright holder and send it through OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yuck. That looks like a corporate upload account -- seems like it is an organization (http://ventdesforets.org ) which allows artists to put up sculptures in the woods every year, or something like that. Most of the photos are used on fr:Vent des Forêts. It looks like the user has stuff dated back to 2014. I spot checked a couple and Google Images show no hits -- not sure these photos are available elsewhere, so it is probably someone in the organization, and may well have rights on the photos. It does look like photographers are credited in the filenames or file descriptions somewhere -- seems like a mix of names and cameras. However, most photos depict a copyrighted work -- as there is no FoP in France, those are problematic. It is possible that the contracts with the sculptors give the organization the right to license such photos, but we'd probably need a statement sent to COM:OTRS for that. There are uploads from 2014 on. Not all of the photos are problematic, but most are. There is a map as well, which may have a separate copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I added a message in French on the account talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Clindberg: The map you mention, File:Vdf-2015.jpg has been uploaded, deleted and reuploaded. This map is identical with [2]] and has a IGN autorisation. I know by experience that such IGN autorisation is a restricted one, and does not make the file reproducable by thirds for commercial use. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Sky 3D UK.png

File:Sky 3D UK.png has been uploaded under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", but I doubt that a major corporation such as Sky and its subsidiaries have agreed to freely license their logos. I looked on the source given for the file and found " 2.7 You will not copy, download, reproduce, republish, frame, broadcast, transmit in any manner whatsoever, any material on the Sky website except as is strictly necessary for Your own personal non-commercial home use." at sky.com/help/articles/skycom-terms-and-conditions. In addition, Sky seems to be based out of the UK and I believe the COM:TOO is a bit lower there than it is in other countries so I'm not even sure this qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} or something similar. Looking at the other files uploaded by the same uploader, File:Logo Paramount Comedy Ru.png seems to be a clear fair-use copyvio (I tagged it as such) and there are others uploaded as CC 3.0 which also probably are not free. Any feedback on whether some of these qualify as PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Would seem to be an obvious case of {{No permission since}}. When viewing an image page, the tool "No permission" in the left sidebar will perform all the required steps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look Clindberg. The file has been tagged as such by another editor. Any opinions on the other uploads? Are some of them simple enough for "PD-textlogo"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Fry1989 reverted it: [3]. Yann (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer

Wouldn't

Reproduction of this image is permitted for personal use or study.
— {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}

be incompatible with the Commons:Project scope? czar 01:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The page Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC, which is linked from the license, has a rather long explanation. My (inofficial) summary: it's one of the non-copyright restrictions we decide to ignore. --rimshot^talk 08:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: As Rimshot said, it's a purely Italian law, completely unrelated to copyright (it mostly applies to works that are the better part of a thousand years old). No one outside of Italy needs to care (and, from my understanding, most people 'in' Italy ignore it). Revent^talk 10:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revent, don't we care because Commons abides by the image use law in both the home country and the United States? And if so, wouldn't this show that the agreement reached with the Italian government is incompatible with Commons? (An aside—the cultural clause doesn't interfere with FoP at all, right? It's not like sculptures and buildings approved by the Italian government automatically get a pass on their strict FoP laws?) czar 15:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Abides with the image use copyright law of the home country, that is.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We comply with copyright law in the country of origin. This is not a copyright law. There are many other laws which impose (real) restrictions on image use; however those are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions and do not preclude hosting images here. We do try to inform re-users of potential issues like that (thus the tag), but the licensing policy is specifically geared to copyright law in particular and not any restrictions in general (even trademark, which can highly restrict usage). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all czar 18:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Question re: images of Woodstock Mural at Commons

I have nominated the English Wikipedia article en:Woodstock Mural for Good article status. The question has been raised whether the images of the mural are appropriate for Commons. I am less familiar with copyright rules. Can someone please help us determine if these images are appropriate for Commons? Any help would be much appreciated. -Another Believer (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, my concern is that, due to lack of freedom of panorama in the US[4], such images have to be deleted from Commons, and can only be used on Wikipedia under fair use in low res? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else want to weigh in on this? It will affect an open good article nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the "source" country for an image?

File:SSAntarctic.jpg is a photograph that was taken in Antarctica. The nationality of the photographer may have been Argentine, Swedish or, most likely, American (there were only four crew members). The expedition was "Swedish" and presumably returned there. The photograph in question was taken from a book published in the United Kingdom a few years after the photograph was taken. What country licensing terms should we go by? If it's Sweden, then at the time I believe it was 50 years after the photo is taken for PD. The UK is 70 pma, so cannot be PD (the potential authors died in the 1950-1960s). If Argentina then yes, since 25 pma. Could the easiest option here just be to transfer it to Wikipedia instead? I ask this, because it may be appearing on en Wikipedia's Main Page. Jolly Janner (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The country of origin is usually the country where the work was first published. In this case it may be the UK. Ruslik (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ruslik. I have nominated the file for deletion (and to be moved to Wikipedia), as I believe there is too much doubt over its source country's public domain status. Jolly Janner (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

TOO in China, and country of origin

Does someone here know which copyright licenses to the .top logo are correct, the one on en:File:.top domain.jpg or the one on File:.top domain.jpg? It is tagged as "don't move to Commons" on enwiki because we weren't sure it is free in the country of origin which may be China, but here it's PD-textlogo.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Berliner Fernsehturm November 2013.jpg

Hi, Could knowledgeable people comment on this please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Share my Content here with CC-BY-SA and on Youtube with standard Youtube license

moved from Village Pump

I have used the search function and I know there has been questions related to youtube but I could not find the answer to this particular case I am asking for.

Hey everyone for my public job I shared quite some teaching videos on wikimedia commons. Now I am doing a private online class in my free time and I want to monetize the content via Youtube. As far as I understand choosing the youtube standard license gives Youtube usage rights but the copy right remains with me. Will it be possible to dual license the material so that I can also upload the videos on wikimedia commons under CC-BY-SA without transfering the copyright to Wikimedia Foundation?

Btw I know Youtube allows CC-BY but this is no option for me for the following two reasons

Since I have commercial interests I want to have a copy left so I need the SA part in CC.
CC-BY videos must not be monetized on youtube. This could only happen if other people reupload it wit a standard Youtube License and I don't want others to earn money on youtube with my content.

By the way I am in Germany where - as far as i know - copyright naturally cannot be transfered but only usage right and licenses can be given to others.

Thank you very much for information and help. --Renepick (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No license normally used here transfers copyright to the Wikimedia Foundation.
CC-BY-SA is fine.
What you can't do on Commons is put a restriction on commercial use (e.g. no CC-BY-NC). - Jmabel ! talk 06:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I knew that I could not do NC but that is cool. I have no problems if others use it commercially once they have to share it back. Not that I expect the following but just for clarification: Do I understand it correctly that if a tv show would want to include the video or a part of it in their program their entire show would have to be CC-BY-SA. They can run ads because no NC is specified But I could upload the entire show here on wikimedia commons. right? --Renepick (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the last part: possibly not. I could for example write a book that includes an image taken by somebody else that is licensed CC-BY-SA. As far as I understand it, that would not automatically make the whole book CC-BY-SA. Only if I edit the image, that edited version of the image has to be CC-BY-SA as well. So I suppose if TV Total (still existed and they) would use a clip of one of your CC-BY-SA-licensed videos as an "Einspieler", that wouldn't automatically make that day's whole show CC-BY-SA (but they'd have to release the edited clip as CC-BY-SA). If on the other hand de:ARD-alpha decides to screen your 30-minute teaching video as a whole show with just some added commentary, that might work differently … Again: IANAL, all just my personal reading of the situation. --El Grafo (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Per the actual license text, the 'Share Alike' clause only applies to what is defined as 'Adapted Material'... a 'derivative work', in our terms. The license is not 'viral'... a compilation that includes a -SA work, as a constituent part, does not have to itself be -SA, they merely have to indicate that the license applies to that portion, and relicense (under SA) any modifications they made (like a voiceover) to the licensed work. Revent^talk 22:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"I don't want others to earn money on youtube with my content."

But Renepick they can do that, if you upload here under cc-by-sa, this licenses allows the commercial use. -- RTA 19:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really, @Rodrigo.Argenton: - as CC-BY-SA isn't an option on Youtube. You can't (legally) upload CC-BY-SA material made by a third party to Youtube, as Youtube's options are only CC-BY or the standard Youtube license. So, if an user uploads a video here under CC-BY-SA and on Youtube only under Youtube's standard license, other Youtube users don't have an option to upload copies of these videos, as I understand it. Of course, CC-BY-SA allows commercial use, and others may be able to earn money from CC-BY-SA licensed videos in other ways; but not, I think, on Youtube. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

After to have upload your content here under cc-by-sa or under anything else allowed here, you stay the copyright owner. And although the publication here is irrevocable, you keep the right to publish your content where you want under the license of your choice from "All right reserved" to PD. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What license?

moved from Village Pump

File:WilliamLemke22.jpg, from 1943, is wrongly licensed as PD US Government, but is nonetheless a free file; however, I can't find a license that applies. The file is from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/2005689398/ . The photographer's mark at the base of the image reads "Harris & Ewing", so it's not a US Gov't image. However the "Rights & Access" notice on the LOC page reads "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication." What license might apply? Rrburke (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not so sure. Assuming that this is a work for hire made by one of Harris & Ewing's employees and is unpublished or was published only recently then the copyright term is 120 years from the creation. Ruslik (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If the LoC says "No known restrictions", which is their term for "public domain", then it's PD in the US -- we just have to figure out why. It would only be if the photo is PD in the US but not in the country of origin that we would delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

{{PD-Harris-Ewing}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Rrburke (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Movie Posters

Most Wikipedia articles regarding films and movies contain an image of the relevant movie poster. Such movie poster images are always copyrighted, so what is the rationale behind uploading and using them? What tag should I use if I intend to upload a movie poster via Upload Wizard? Thanks in advance, Koustav Halder (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Koustav Halder: Very old movie posters and those which were published without a copyright notice and were published when that was a requirement for copyrightability may qualify as one of the PD-old ones. Rarely, such posters are freely licensed then you need to tag them with the license in question. In the majority of cases, they are non-free and you should not upload them.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If images are copyrighted (and not freely licensed), and they are OK to use under Wikipedia's fair-use guidelines, then they should be directly uploaded to the Wikipedia project and not uploaded to Commons. There is no valid tag for them on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Re figuring out if a poster has a notice or not, look into Commons:Copyright rules by territory#United_States Rybkovich (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Donald Short.jpg

Could this be a copy-vio. Looks like a cropped version of image seen here. Eagleash (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I nominated the other upload from User:Bebbo1977, File:Short blueprint1.jpg, for speedy deletion because that picture is obviously taken from the web. And even if not it would still be a copyrighted work of the artist. --Magnus (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Company commissions a building - does Wiki presume they own copyright?

There is a company which owns a theme park, Dubai Parks and Resorts. They bought some land, had buildings built on the land, and they own the buildings and everything around. The buildings are in Dubai, in the UAE, where there is no freedom of panorama (FoP).

Does Wikimedia Commons presume that the company which owns a building also has the rights to release images of the building they own, had built, commissioned, and spent many millions of dollars creating, or alternatively, do we require copyright release from the design team on the presumption that when they designed the building, they never transferred copyright to the building owner in in the building creation process?

For context, single artists making fine art like photographs, paintings, and sculpture often sell their art without selling a copyright transfer. Commons discusses this often and we are all agreed on how to handle this - the owner of a piece of art must provide evidence of being the copyright holder in order for them to release an image on Commons. But does this apply to buildings? Buildings are created in the context of a body of legal review and document exchange. I am totally unfamiliar with what kind of legal documents are created when buildings are made, but I would have expected that considering the money exchanged that all imaginable rights that could be assigned would routinely go to the company commissioning the building, and that design teams would not be presumed to be the copyright holder for a building and instead the building owner would be. Assume that we are discussing construction on the order of USD $50 million.

At ticket:2016030110011405 the social media manager of the theme park writes in requesting undeletion of pictures that the theme park wishes to release on Commons with a free license. They had previously uploaded these and the pictures were deleted for lack of certainty of the identity of the uploader. It is now confirmed that the theme park, which is the owner of the buildings, would like to release these pictures. Does Commons have a default presumption about the copyright held by building owners in non-FoP countries? When someone spends a large sum of money commissioning buildings, and they try to release images of buildings that they own, do we require them to provide proof from the architectural firm that the copyright of the building was transferred to them? Alternatively, do we accept copyright release from the owners of buildings?

Can or should I remove another user's copyright notice and/or restrictions on PD images?

In 2007 a user uploaded two of his own images on the English Wikipedia.^[5][6] The uploader included statements that the images were being released into the public domain. However, both image descriptions also have copyright notices, one of them also has the restriction "please contact via '(e-mail address)' before use" and the other has an offer "full res uncompressed 8MP image available via (e-mail address)". Both images are presently in the queue to be transferred to Commons.^[7]

There is at least one image from the same photographer that is already on Commons.

File:Craigie House, Ayr, Horizon 202 camera. Paul Russell, 2006.jpg has restriction "(C) Paul Russell, 2006. All Rights Reserved. For subsequent use please seek permission from '(e-mail)'".
File:The A66(M) crosses an unclassified road near Stapleton. - geograph.org.uk - 89614.jpg copyright asserted via template.
File:Old barn-shelter near Stapleton - geograph.org.uk - 89607.jpg copyright asserted via template.
File:A1(M) near Cleasby, looking south. - geograph.org.uk - 89626.jpg copyright asserted via template.
File:Flooded gravel quarry near Cleasby.jpg copyright asserted via template.

I suspect the uploader should not have included the copyright notices and restrictions in his original uploads that also released them into the PD. Can we remove the copyright notices and the restriction notices? Marc Kupper (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Marc Kupper I am not following everything that is happening here and feel confused. For the picture that says, "All Rights Reserved", that is a problem. Either the picture needs to be deleted from Commons or we need to confirm the copyright license. Some of the other pictures have a template that says, "The copyright on this image is owned by xyz" and that is fine and to be expected because photographers retain copyright while applying CC-By licenses. I am not seeing any photos that are both asserted as public domain and claimed to be copyrighted. Can you point to those? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, your response left me perplexed. I believe that the works fall into one of two categories. 1) Copyright works and 2) Public domain works. The two are mutually exclusive. An owner of a copyright work can dedicate the work into the public domain. If they do so then they relinquish their copyright. Rather than dedicating into the public domain a copyright owner can license it under Creative Commons. Creative Commons-licensed works are still copyright. In this case the owner used the Wikipedia templates to dedicate his work to the public domain but also stated that he was both retaining the copyright and for some of the works posted additional restrictions. In thinking about it, he was trying to do something closer to a Creative Commons license and may have used the PD template by accident. My initial question has been if we should be removing the notices about copyright and the user's restrictions as the works are now PD. However, I now see that we could also switch to using an appropriate CC template though technically it's too late to give the copyright back to that person.

The works that are both copyright and public domain are:

wikipedia:File:BrodickBay.jpg - I know this is on Wikipedia but it's in the queue to be transferred to Commons and so address it here. He used {{PD-self}} which is a dedication to the public domain. His description is "(c) Paul Russell, please contact via '(email)' before use." which asserts both a copyright (which he lost by using PD-self), and a "contact via '(email)' before use" restriction on use which is a right he can't assert for a PD work nor could he assert this this right for a {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-uk}} work. (He seems to be in the UK which is why I picked that CC template).
wikipedia:File:MaidensA.jpg - This is also on Wikipedia and also used PD-self. His description is "(c) Paul Russell 2006, full res uncompressed 8MP image available via (email)" which asserts a copyright which he lost by using PD-self. There is no stated restriction on use.
File:Craigie House, Ayr, Horizon 202 camera. Paul Russell, 2006.jpg has already been migrated to Commons from Wikipedia. I'm assuming he used PD-self initially though when the image was added to Commons it was with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}} plus {{GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers}} with the parameter migration=relicense. Technically the person handling the migration should not have converted a PD work into a CC license work but I won't complain about that as the initial uploader likely would have used a CC license had been aware that it was better match for his intention which was to keep the copyright. There is still an issue in that this image description is "(C) Paul Russell, 2006. All Rights Reserved. For subsequent use please seek permission from '(email)'" which has both "All Rights Reserved" and a restriction on use. Neither of those are allowed under Cc-by-sa.
In my previous message there are four images (1, 2, 3, 4) where I included the comment "copyright asserted via template". I looked further and these are ok. The copyright owner uploaded the images to geograph.org.uk and used that site's CC-by-SA 2.0 template. The images were subsequently migrated to Commons and are using cc-by-sa-2.0 along with the copyright.

My initial question still stands which is that since the copyright owner dedicated the first three images to the public domain that if we should remove his copyright and restrictions notices? Or, should we decide his intent was to use CC-by-SA, switch to the cc-by-sa-2.0 template, and to remove those restrictions that are incompatible with cc-by-sa-2.0? Marc Kupper (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Marc Kupper I am still unable to identify any general trend in this person's licensing practices, and so I will not speak generally, but I will look at individual pictures with you. I feel perplexed with you. To back up - yes, confirmed, copyright and public domain are mutually exclusive; copyright and Creative Commons licensing are not.

For en:File:BrodickBay.jpg at the time of upload in 2007 the uploader both asserted copyright and made a public domain declaration. I take this as an indication of improper release, and default to assume the conservative scenario in which the uploader intended to retain traditional copyright and not make a public domain declaration. I would call this invalid licensing. Since the license at the time of upload was not valid, the file ought to be deleted unless the copyright holder will confirm a valid license immediately.
For en:File:MaidensA.jpg, again the uploader says, "(c) Paul Russell 2006" and makes a public domain declaration. I dismiss the PD declaration, assume the copyright, and see the file as incorrectly licensed and in need of deletion.
For File:Craigie House, Ayr, Horizon 202 camera. Paul Russell, 2006.jpg the file description says, "(C) Paul Russell, 2006. All Rights Reserved. " "All rights reserved" is not compatible with Wikipedia licensing.

The uploader Paulrussell has not edited English Wikipedia since about 2008 and has never contributed to Commons. Their email address is there - they could be emailed and sent Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries, and if only they would return the consent, the files could be licensed. As things are, since the files at the time of upload had an assertion of copyright, I do not think they are compatible with Commons hosting. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Copyright is mandatory and the copyright holder can only license the copyright, not relinquish it. If there is a copyright notice (for example, (C) Paul Russell, 2006. All Rights Reserved.), then most free licences require that you include the copyright notice if you use the material. This at least tends to be the case with free licences which require attribution, such as GPL, GFDL and CC-BY. Free licences such as {{PD-self}} and {{Cc-zero}} do not seem to require this.

The words "all rights reserved" originate from the Buenos Aires Convention: copyright holders who didn't include these words weren't guaranteed protection in Buenos Aires Convention member countries. All of the countries have since joined the Berne Convention, so the words are no longer needed, but many copyright holders still include these words in copyright notices. I would assume that the inclusion of these words aren't meant as a restriction of the licence but only as a copyright notice.

If there is a restriction, such as a requirement to contact the copyright holder before any use, then this may mean that the licence only is valid to the extent that it doesn't conflict with this restriction. Such restrictions could sometimes make a file unfree even if the copyright tag indicates a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have e-mailed the photographer to see if he is available. The e-mail did not bounce and so it seems the address is still valid. It seems from this thread that the answer to my question is that we can't go in and change the wording of someone's description to remove information that conflicts with the license template they used as part of their upload. For example, someone could argue that since he used PD-self that it trumps any effort he made to also to retain the copyright or otherwise restrict use of the image. In that case we'd just remove the copyright notice and restrictions leaving PD-self.

Both Bluerasberry and Stefan2 are correct in that photographer's additional wording make the images unfree (if we choose to accept the wording) and that they should not be on Commons. I believe they could not be on Wikipedia either as that site only allows fair-use of unfree content and none of the images are being used in a fair-use context.

@Bluerasberry, the photographer's copyright statements are fine if he had used {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-uk}} when uploading the images and also had not included the additional restrictions. In that case the images can be on Commons. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please review newly proposed {{PD-US-alien property}} template. This template will be useful for very limited number of files which were handled by w:Office of Alien Property Custodian and are PD in the source country (likely Germany or Japan), liike this one. --Jarekt (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we do need a tag like that. Please also add that it only applies to works originally owned by a government or instrumentality thereof as privately-owned works were still subject to the URAA. (This is unlikely to count much for Japanese war photos, as those had a very short term and had expired per Japanese law before the URAA anyways. But it could apply to other types of works.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Carl I corrected the template. I guess I skipped it because I did not fully understand it. Is the current version understandable? The "instrumentality thereof" could be replaced by "governmental organ" to make it a bit more clear. --Jarekt (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. The "instrumentality thereof" wording was made with w:Transit Film GmbH in mind, by the way -- the U.S. does not consider copyrights administered by them to be private copyrights. In general though, for non-government copyrights the alien property status was wiped away by the URAA just as much as no-notice and no-renewal, so that is a very important clause to add. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Assistance needed

I would some assistance with creating new PD templates under Belgium ;

documents and materials release by the federal government are free of (copy)rights unless otherwise specified
iḿ looking for the regional governments decrees to that effect
City of Antwerp council decreed on jan 26th 2016 that all own publications by the city of antwerp and yhe libraries, musea, archives under its juridiction are now free of (copy)rights unless otherwise specified

thanks for any assistance you can provide, i will provide the info and the links to these laws and decrees such that the templates can be made availbale for public use --DerekvG (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

revise {template:UN map} title + description

template:UN map The title and the description of the tag gives the impression that a UN map on its own can be used, when per the UN policy only a derivative work of the map can be posted. http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/about.htm

"We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site (if the map is not part of a specific publication, book or article) because we revise the maps very often and want to ensure that only an updated map is posted on the Web. You can however create links to our site instead. No permission is required for the link."

Change it to Template:PD-UN-map-derivative and at the very end add in bold The UN maps on their own can not be uploaded? I will do it if we agree on a change. Rybkovich (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Images from Tasnim News Agency

Some files like File:Qadr missile (Eghtedar-e Velayat wargamem, March 2016) 01.jpg is taken from "Tasnim New Agency". The bottom of there page (like this) states "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.". However, the file in that article is taken from this and is not a free image. In this article the non free image from here is used. I think that a lot (if not all) of this images are not free.

User:Saff V. (and perhaps others) is uploading content from this site but that content cant be free, even thou its stated. Perhaps its only the text that is CC?

Search shows 1137 images. I doubt any of them are OK since that page seems to use non-free content and branding it as CC. How do we deal with this? /Hangsna (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The photos with watermark were taken by Tasnim photographer and they have name of photographer.Saff V. (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The images will need to be checked, one by one, to see if they were created by a Tasnim photographer. Those images, and only those images, can be copied to Wikipedia or Commons. The good news is that Tasnim seems to be in the habit of watermarking their images. A spot check of five images from 1137 images already uploaded to Commons found that all five were watermarked and a quick visual scan of the thumbnails for the first 500 images in the list shows that they were taken within Iran meaning they likely were by Tasnim photographers. There's more good news in that Tasnim seems to have all of their own images at http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/photos though there's still manual work needed extract a full list of their images.

Unfortunately, Tasnim does not include any Exif tags with their images meaning bulk scanning is not practical. Marc Kupper (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Tasnimnews.com

Hey guys, tasnimnews.com have a "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. " disclaim, but I don't know if the photos are their propriety, I have my doubts and a volunteer made a massive upload from it Special:Contributions/GTVM92, and most of media from it are in review needed category. OBS: I started to separate it from the rest of the review needed images Category:Tasnimnews review needed. What do you think? -- RTA 12:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

See the comments under "Images from Tasnim News Agency" just a bit up this page. I think they all need individual review or deletion. /Hangsna (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hangsna thanks, I didn't see it (I don't know why o.O), thanks.

----

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

-- RTA 02:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

File:NBC 2014 Ident.svg

Any opinions on whether the licensing for File:NBC 2014 Ident.svg is correct? File talk:NBC 2014 Ident.svg says it's an svg recreation and no copyright infringement is intended, but the "intent" may not matter. The reason I'm asking is because I mentioned the file in en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 20#NBC logos and a few editors felt that the file's licensing was incorrect. There are quite a number of non-free NBC logos uploaded locally to Wikipedia. If something such as this file is acceptable by Commons as PD, then many of these non-free files could also probably be converted to {{PD-textlogo}}. The en:NBC peacock does not seem to be copyrightable based upon Category:NBC logos, but I am wondering if certain variations of it might be. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot imagine how the peacock cannot be considered both trademarked and copyrighted. The whole category probably ought to be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I searched the DR archives and it seems the peacock (or at least versions of it) has been discussed quite a number of times before such as at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:NBC logos, Commons:Deletion requests/File:LogoNBC.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:MSNBC 2008 logo.svg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:NBC News 2013 logo.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:NBC 2014 Indent Style.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:MSNBC logo.png, etc. and the close has almost always been keep. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

According to COM:TOO, a logo as complex as File:Best_Western_logo.svg was considered not original enough. I am guessing we are dealing with the same situation here - a combination of shapes that doesn't quite rise enough in complexity to generate a copyright.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Logos can be exempted from copyright for several reasons, and unfortunately COM:TOO doesn't discuss that situation. Some of the pictures under COM:TOO#United States are ineligible for copyright because they mostly consist of lettering, not because they necessarily lack originality. There is some discussion about this in this document. The Best Western logo seems to be ineligible for copyright for the first reason (so it isn't useful for determine if something is ienligible for copyright for the second reason). The COM:TOO page should probably be split into multiple pages based on the reason to why files are ineligible for copyright protection. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Best Western logo was rejected on the reason of originality so technically it is a good example for lack of originality.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

These deletions are based solely on the unqualified opinions of various random people; indeed, it seems that as soon as anyone says "keep", they get kept. The truth seems to be that nobody knows whether any threshold has been crossed in the logos, one way or the other, I suspect because there's never been a case because nobody has tried to copy elements of the logo in a way that doesn't transgress trademark anyway. It is evident to me that the copyright office's decisions are arbitrary enough to be unpredictable (e.g. I believe that Disney's signature is copyrighted, whereas other script logos may or may not be) and therefore there isn't a "threshold" in the sense of a definite line that anyone can see without a ruling from the office. I also note that in most of these discussions at least one person rejects the "simple geometric shapes" claim, and so do I, at least for the peacock. Mangoe (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There are certainly a lot of logos on the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale which could be transferred here with a {{PD-textlogo}} license. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Applicability of PD-art to images of partially 3D objects

A question has come up on en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2016_February_10#File:Millenium_Hall.jpg about whether PD-Art (mostly exact photographies of 2D works) would apply to it. I wonder if folks on Commons might be able to comment on that image copyright question, as such things are a major business here, so to speak.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The photograph would have its own copyright. PD-Art is about straight-on photographs of 2-D works, i.e. when the photograph amounts to a straight copy of the original. The copyright on a photograph can involve the framing, angle, and other elements attributable to the photographer; PD-Art is a situation where the framing and angle and other elements are basically pre-determined and are not creative themselves. But, this photo is different -- it adds creativity over and above the pictured work. That additional creativity still has a copyright. From the Bridgman ruling (the one that PD-Art is based on): There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection. "Elements of originality ... may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved." [Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301, 307 (2d Cir.)] But "slavish copying," although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify. So, the reason copyright was denied in the PD-Art case was that the photo was a slavish copy of the original painting -- straight-on angle and framing to contain the original are not creative. This however is a photo of a 3-D object, basically. We have deleted photographs of coins; this is little different. We need to have a license for the photograph.

I'm not sure of the authorship of the photograph itself. It has been on Wikipedia since January 2006, so there has been ample opportunity for it to spread on the web. I do see a copy of the photo at http://otago.ourheritage.ac.nz/items/show/7582, and it appears the physical book pictured is in their collections. The timestamp on that version is 2014, but that may just be a new website. I have not found an archived version which predates the upload time, but I do see another photo of the same physical book on their site dated 2007 here (from an exhibition page here). I also found an exact byte-for-byte copy here, on a page here, which has a server date of July 2006. I would strongly suspect the photograph came from there -- unsure if the uploader had any relationship with the institution, but since the photo had to be taken by someone with access to the actual book, it seems far more likely that the photo was taken from an Otago University web page at the time and copied here, rather than taken by a private individual at Otago University, then uploaded, then copied from here by the university (without credit). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The photograph would not have its own copyright. PD-Art includes photographs of 3-D objects, such as paintings or books, where there is insufficient opportunity for originality in the composition, and Bridgeman vs Corel is a clear, but not definitive, exposition of that principle. Without this, we would have virtually no PD photographs on Commons. There is also to be considered the principle of de minimis, which allows images to include small amounts of copyrightable items without infringing any copyright. There is little doubt that the principal work of art in the image is the text and image in the opening pages of the book. Both of these are 2-D works and are clearly out of copyright by any measure. It is equally clear that the background and lighting do nothing to enhance the photograph (contrast that to the situation where a statue or even a coin is photographed), and it is merely the choice of background that might have carried a creative effort. However, the edges of the book and the featureless background are peripheral to the photograph, both in physical location and in importance on the whole image. This is precisely where de minimis applies. Think about it: if anybody who takes a photograph of an Old Master - and includes a bit of the wall behind it - could create a new copyright, they would drive a coach and horses through Bridgeman vs Corel, and we'd have no PD images left on Commons. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want the text and image of the opening pages of that book, go ahead and crop them out. That's is what we've done with Old Masters that have a bit of the wall in the picture; we have not included frames on what not on a de minimis basis. If cropping those pages out would produce a less satisfactory picture, then it's clear that there is some value in the 3D parts that would have involved at least some smidgen of copyrightable creativity.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There may not be originality in the composition and arrangement of the subject matter, but there still is in the angle and other photographic elements. A photo of a 3D object in general has been ruled copyrightable several times. Bridgman was very clear about that -- they simply ruled about slavish copying via photograph. There is obviously no copyright in the book itself -- the photo is not a derivative work -- but the photo itself is copyrightable. It is only the elements original to the photograph itself which are copyrightable -- in your example, you can crop out anything which might give rise to a photographic copyright (like original framing), and be OK. The part of the photograph which reproduces the painting is not copyrightable. If a photo was off at an angle, that might still be an issue -- but if there is only a single element which is copyrightable (like an extra bit of wall in your example) then that much is probably de minimis. But the more elements you add, like lighting and angle, then that changes. The photo in question is absolutely copyrightable. That would not prevent anyone from making a similar photo of the same book, but the photos will always be distinguishable; they would not be slavish copies of each other. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Stichting Surinaams Museum

I want to upload this Flickr photograph of Augusta Curiel (died 22 November 1937) onto Wikimedia Commons. Is this acceptable, because the photographer has died 70 years ago? How to do this technically? Do I have to copy it temporarily as a screenshot? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the copyright term has expired and you can upload it. You can use a direct link to the file to save it (and then to upload it to Commons). Ruslik (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Thank you very much for the clarification and advice. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Youtube stills

When searching for a free image for a person using Google (labeled in Dutch "gelabeld voor hergebruik, inclusief aanpassing"), I landed on search results with youtube stills. My question is, can these stills be used on Commons. And if so, what should I use when uploading a file? For an example see this result page: https://www.google.nl/search?q=Mijntje+L%C3%BCckerath&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=919&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB_N2Hyr3LAhUL8RQKHV7lAmEQsAQIIw#q=Mijntje+L%C3%BCckerath&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbs=sur:fmc

In addition, I could't find the copyright information of a particular video on Youtube. Would anybody know where to look?

Thanks, Elly (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Google's license filtering isn't always perfect, but in this case, it looks like you're in luck. Looking at the first result, it points to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndZC5tNZJsk. If you click on "SHOW MORE" underneath the description, you'll see "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" (as opposed to "Standard YouTube License", which is the non-free, Wikimedia Commons-incompatible default). Clicking on that link leads to https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468/, which (from the "CC BY" text) links to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode. (I don't know why Youtube made it so hard to find the exact version of the license.) So you can upload screenshots of that video to Commons under {{cc-by-3.0}}. Be sure to add {{licensereview}} to the file description as well, so that the current license is documented in case the video is taken down or has its license changed. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It was indeed mrs. Lückerath I was looking for. Dutch female professor (#gendergap). Elly (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Image of vintage film poster removed, others remain -- I am not clear on the discrepancy.

If you look at the history of the "Empire Strikes Back" page, you can see that an image of a rare promotional poster I uploaded was removed. This poster was presumably created at the request of 20th Century Fox in England in 1980 and was distributed to the general public for promotional purposes. I am currently in possession of one of the posters and I photographed it personally. I wanted to share it with the wiki community as it's a very rare and important piece of nostalgia coinciding with an important event in Star Wars history. Anyway, I made a small addition to the text in the Empire Strikes Back article referencing the "Empire Day" event and then uploaded the photo of the poster. I assumed this would be allowable as there are many film posters on wikipedia in general, including at least two on the Empire Strikes Back page itself. Neither of the images already present on the Empire Strikes Back page were uploaded by the copyright holder (20th Century Fox). I am unclear as to why my poster image was removed and the other poster images remain? I have a collection of 1000+ vintage posters and I was hoping to share many of them here to give back to the wikipedia community that I've benefit greatly from over the years. I see that both of the existing poster images were uploaded using the "Non-free media information and use rationale". Could my image be re-uploaded with similar disclosure text? Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Empire_Strikes_Back&action=history - 18:13, 7 March 2016 User:Appreciable

"Promotional" release does not mean release under a formal license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons. The "Non-free media information and use rationale" images are hosted on English Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you can archive this inquiry. I'm new to contributing and didn't realize the difference between uploading images on Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appreciable (talk • contribs)

Can't find out when the author died

Emma Kissling is the author for a number of files on Commons (File:Sternoptyx diaphana1.jpg and File:Zugmayer1912 Planche IV.JPG) and the rationale claims that she died over 70 years ago, but I've been unable to verify this and indeed none of the files state when she died. What's the protocol here? Do we delete on the side of caution or is there some similar licensing terms to an unknown author? Without such, there is beyond reasonable doubt that she did not die 70 years ago. Jolly Janner (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hrm. Monaco might have 50pma terms -- wipolex only has a law from 1948; not sure if it has been updated. They are PD-1923 for the US side, as these were published in 1911. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

She might have been German -- her name comes up in some German books as early as 1905. She is referred to as "Miss", meaning she might have married and changed her name, making it harder to search. She was referred to as "young" in the 1911 book in question. Being a publication from a 50pma country increases the odds of it being OK greatly, but not a sure thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia article links to a 1975 law. Either way, if she made the drawings aged 30 and died age 85, they would be under copyright. This is an entirely possible scenario, so the doubt remains. Thanks for reminding me of the US license tag. Perhaps transfer all to Wikipedia in a mass deletion request? Jolly Janner (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That law just seems to be ratifying the 1971 amendments to the Berne Convention, and is the text of the treaty. Monaco has been a Berne member since 1889. They already had the 50pma terms which were mandated by the 1971 Berne amendments. It's on the edge for a 50pma country -- sort of equivalent to an 1885 work in a 70pma country. We don't have hard and fast rules about any particular age. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

According to this page, they think she was born in 1862 or 1864, and may have died around 1950, though that may be a complete guess. The link to geni.com there seems highly doubtful it's the same person. Just seems to be the first hit on Google. The 1864 date may be from the second hit on google (ancestry.com record of someone born to German parents, but parents died in US). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This book says she was a student of Prof. Lorenz Muller (1868 - 1953) in Munich. This page says she married a Prof. G. Freytag. There was a Dr. Gustav Freytag at the University of Munich; unsure if that is the same person. Ooooh.... this book, from 1920, mentions an illustration die noch von der Hand der verstorbenen Frau EMMA FREYTAG-KISSLING herrühren. From Google Translate, that says the "deceased Mrs. Freytag-Kissling", so she had died by 1920. License looks to be good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Aha. In this book, there is the following quote: Geschenkweise erhielt das Archiv einen Band der Beilage zu den „Kreuzburger Nachrichten" aus den Jahren 1928 — 1932, die unter dem Titel „Aus der Heimat" erschien. In dem Band befinden sich auch Beiträge vont Prof. Dr. Willibald Freytag, u. a. der Aufsatz über seinen Vater Gustav Freytag. Auf Seite 24 finden wir auch eine Notiz zur Stammtafel der Familie Freytag mit der Bemerkung "Am 4. 2. 1913 ist die zweite Gemahlin Prof. W. Fr. Emma Kißling gestorben. Er hat sich am 29. 10 1929 zm dritten Male mit Agnes Maria Herrmann in München vermählt." Die Besitzer der Stammtafel können dieselbe also in diesem Sinne vervollständigen. (Bern. Agnes Maria ist auch verstorben.) So... that says she was the second wife of Prof. Gustav Willibald Freytag (1876 - 1943), son of w:Gustav Freytag, and she died on February 4, 1913. Since the 1911 book refers to her as "Miss" they were probably married in the interim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

When was this taken?

No automobiles, bicycles, oldtype wheelchair, old fashioned clothing. I suspect pre WW I.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Smiley.toerist - Yes, that's definitely pre-WWI. Funnily enough, I'm a Devon boy so I kind of know of this place! I can't find anything really concrete, but this can only be from around 1910. The Brixham Heritage Museum may be able to tell you more... Mabalu (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-anon-70-EU

Hi. Can please anyone who is more familiar with EU law (which, in fact, doesn't even exist according to anonymous works as a whole) than user:Jarekt have a look at Template_talk:PD-anon-70-EU#Latest_revisions? It is about a clarification according to the laws of different countries according to Anonymous Works. Jarekt just started an edit-war that I don't want to participate in. I gave good reasons grounding on law and jurisdiction in that discussion; Jarekt keeps reverting while admitting that he is "not familiar with EU copyright laws" but "with Commons templates". Thanks. Yellowcard (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong license tag

Copied by me from COM:HD. Nyttend (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Submarine cable repeater.png uses a pre-1989 license tag for a U.S. patent drawing published in 1997. But instead of nominating that image for deletion, there might be chances that another license tag applies - who could I ask to check that ? -- Juergen 37.24.212.73 22:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

tagged with {{PD-Ineligible}} and {{LicenseReview}}--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Juergen 37.24.212.73 11:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 37.24.212.73 11:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Monster Energy

Is the logo on this cans simple enough? /Hangsna (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia at en:File:Monster energy drink feature.jpg the logo is described as non-free. Whatever the decision, this English Wikipedia file and Commons ought to match. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The logo is copyrightable. On the other hand, per the Ets Hokin decision, taking a picture of the entire can or bottle is different than just the logo or label itself -- that said only photos focusing on the label could be derivative works. Some of these, I'm sure, get into some gray territory but they all seem to be arguable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I shouldn't be as sure on the logo either -- you could argue that is just a very stylized M. I was looking more at the edges, which really aren't related to the shape of the letter itself, and would certainly be copyrightable on their own, which is where you can get into copyrightable areas. But that is probably in a gray area as well -- could be a close call. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Don Short.jpg

A file identical to this one was previously deleted as a result of a discussion here. It has now been uploaded to Commons again with attribution but still claiming own work. I think it still may not be properly licensed. Eagleash (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Eagleash. I tagged for copyviol--Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Eagleash (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Colourised image

I am helping edit a Wikipedia page for a film colourisation artist. His page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Humphryes. He has asked me if I can upload a single screen-capture of his work for identification and critical commentary. By the nature of what he creates, this would be a screenshot of a television program, so although he soley created the chroma (colour) it is overlaid onto the luminance of the original black and white programme. Is there fair use or some provision for a colourisation artist, responsible for colourising footage, to have a frame of his work uploaded? Neither of us know the answer. Thank you.Chaotic Galaxy (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Colourisation of an existing work may not be considered sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection. So, you can upload a screenshot if the underlying B&W work in the public domain. Ruslik (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. When you say they "may not" is that semantically the same as saying they "might not" or are you saying it legally "is not"? There's a massive difference and "may" is awfully ambiguous. If you mean "may" as "might" is there a place to achieve a consensus via debate from Wikipedia editors? Chaotic Galaxy (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant "might" because you did not provide a link to any sample image. Ruslik (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I didn't realise I would be allowed to upload the image in order to link to it here. I was frightened of over-stepping the mark! Chaotic Galaxy (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I had problems trying to understand how to edit or modify the template and licence information. When I tried changes it kept thowing up a speedy deletion notice. But what I was trying to achieve with my edits to the photo was the same as was achieved with another screenshot from the same serial which has been allowed. Info here:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mind_of_Evil.jpg Chaotic Galaxy (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My gut reaction is that Stuart Humphryes himself, throws this issue back to the BBC. As part of the production team, the BBC would I think, acknowledge that his skills be recognized – after all his name will appear on the credits. And BBC contributers can go to the BBC library to get a copy of work that they have contributed to in order to show other would-be employers. And although Wikipedia is not a soap box nor show case for the likes of SH, his skill at colourizing [[:]] is astounding and for that reason notable here on WP. He could first try at Branding. But as this is not really a branding issue, filling out the I have another type of requestform at the bottom might be better, as most of the BBC staff now know about Wikipedia. Or ask around the grapevine about how other contributors have squared this circle. The BBC syndicates their programs all over the world, so it is in their interest also, to reciprocate with a CC licence (fat chance of that) or something acceptable to WP. The Royal Mint allows File:Bank Of England10.png and if the BBC can't come up with something similar then they are surly going to loose their licence fee one day. To my mind, the original b&w image has too many copyright issues for inclusion here without BBC clearance.--P.g.champion (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind advice. The file I uploaded for discussion has been deleted anyway. It may just be simpler if we let anyone interested in what he does do their own google image search if Wikipedia is not the place to host such material. Chaotic Galaxy (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerning metadata of derivative images in Commons

Recently, I mentioned a problem I saw with the metadata and copyright of derivative images in Commons on Wikipedia Weekly (initially, as a comment on the licensing bot Germans just built). I was recommended to write it here instead. I have my doubts about its usefulness, based on my 10+ years in Wikipedia, but hey, I can try.

So, as I've been working on Freedom of Panorama and other copyright issues in recent years (including running a public political campaign for FoP), I see a larger problem we have with Commons metadata and copyright. Many photos in Commons depict the works of art in some other genre, yet we do not have a uniform, machine-readable metadata fields for the original piece. I'm not sure what exactly German copyright law says about it, but in some countries it is mandatory to show attribution to the author - and there is no exception for derivative works that would erase the rights of the author of the original. This lack of metadata also leads to problems like when the photo of a building is decently licensed and everybody expects it is okay to use, though in fact there is no permission of the original author. For some arts which are mostly permanently public like architecture, Freedom of Panorama solves a lot of problems (though not everything, consider drone photography in Germany or sculpture in Russia), but some are usually uncovered by FoP (like paintings). And internationally, one has to consider not only the copyright laws in the country of origin, but also in the country of use, making correct attribution even more important. So, while the bot does a good work, due to the structure of metadata (and our actual licensing policy) on Commons, the chain of attribution stops at the last point.

A couple of examples: 1) CC 2.0 license for the photo does not cover the building, especially in a country with no FoP, and no architect is mentioned; 2) Interior design on the photo might be done by the company indicated but there is no proof of a license except the user name, and there is no date or place, so no hint to jurisdiction (not everywhere an organization automatically gets all the rights of its workers' art, especially for omitting the name(s) of the individual author(s); 3) A perfectly nice example of a perfectly nice picture of a well-known building yet nobody gives a damn about the architect (in some countries at least, the legal obligation to attribute does not expire); 4) This aerial view of a bridge in Germany might be okay or might be not because it is unclear whether the "permission" referred to as "14.04.2013" concerns the photo or the bridge - and I doubt if German FoP can be interpreted to automatically cover drone photos; 5) The most usual attribution: "Own work". So, the photographer is a sculptor, or at least a stonemason? Doubt it. - In each one of these cases, the legal situation would be much clearer if there were separate fields for the authors, dates, licences, etc of both the photos and the original works.

Currently, nobody even knows how many derivative works we have in Commons. Ca 50%? Dunno. Nobody even tries to differ the attributive data, licenses, etc concerning the original work from the data about the photo. Having seen the developments in Wikipedia during the last decade, I don't believe someone would start implementing any such solution for Commons before 5-10 years. Perhaps if there would be some effort to join pictures across Commons and other projects into Wikidata as actual items - not just ornaments illustrating the articles as it is done now -, it would be possible to start mapping the correct metadata. But I've never heard of any such intention, hence it might be quite unlikely, too.

So, my current prognosis on the feedback is: 1) "This is a wrong place, you should have written it someplace else"; 2) "Have you read the Commons policy page of (something irrelevant or FoP)? You have your answers there"; 3) "I've never read any law but I think this is not a problem"; 4) "My only experience with copyright is in America but the whole world should be basically the same"; 5) "You should post some proposal through the appropriate channels (followed by obscure TLAs)"; or 6) "What's a derivative work?". You're welcome to prove me wrong. --Oop (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The bridge is OK because it's not a work of arts. There are only technical solutions that anybody with an adequate education in engineering would have made in a similar way, so the prerequisite for copyright protection in Germany (an expression of the work of someone own's mind / "eigene geistige Schöpfung") is not given. The photographer is fully free to use a licensing of his choice. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

we need a metadata artist cleanup drive to supplement the metadata cleanup drive.[8] this problem was noticed by media viewer. when it reported uploader as artist. we need to migrate appropriate derivative works from information template to artwork and photograph template. we will need a maintenance category to feed a tool such as metadata cleanup tool. so you found another backlog, big deal. fix it. we could start with the 11,000 artwork files with no metadata: Category:Artworks_missing_infobox_template. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

So, this is no. 4. No, "The bridge is OK because it's not a work of arts" is not true in all jurisdictions over the Earth. In U.S., copyright does not cover bridges; in Estonia, it does. The border between art and non-art is drawn in quite different places in different countries (see, e.g., the amount of artistry demanded from buildings to fall under protection of copyright by French laws vs. the actual decisions made in French courts). And if belief that "anybody with an adequate education in engineering would" make a bridge "in a similar way" would be true, we would have similar bridges everywhere; in fact, different solutions are always possible even if we consider it only an engineering problem, but actually there are also aesthetic choices. A short introduction to the subject: The Role of Aesthetics in Engineering by Rolf A. Faste (it's far from the newest paper on that matter). The same simplistic argumentation could be used for architecture (functionalism wasn't too far from ideologically), yet all it would do would be proving the simple-mindedness. Anyway, that claim is wrong not only in the aesthetic context, but also legally. --Oop (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The bridge is a German construction, situated in the Bundesland Saxonia, that's why I implicitly assumed in my response the German notion of threshold of originality, which is higher than elsewhere. Of course, your point about different jurisdictions is true. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Who is who behind the username?

After researching for history and location of this beautiful villa with the help of Joanna's Whimsical Life: A Polish palace in Ealing! (22 March 2014) I fond out, that the second photo on the blog is identical with "store.jpg"(1. October 2015) -- confer the clouds, trees and the shadows.

But the first occurrence was in 2010(!): Aleutians East Borough, Alaska: Difference between revisions on Wikipedia, 21. February 2010. Was this picture on Commons, and already once deleted? It may be another Photo with the same name.

Can anyone control if "User:Duchi official" is identical with "Joanna D."? If not, it would be a copyright violence ... Or Duchi official made the Photo, and Joanna published it befor Duchi did it?

Greetings, --Edfyr (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The photo from the 2010 article was on en-wiki directly, and was later renamed en:File:Bearfoot Inn, Cold Bay, Alaska.jpg, and still exists. This upload just happened to have the same name, and the filename on en-wiki has since been moved to expose the commons image, but is unrelated. So, the only two versions you really see are the one from the website in 2014, and the recent identical upload here, which as you note needs better evidence of permission. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, the answer was very helpful, After I informed Duchi official on his user talk page (he did never answer, neither here nor in en:Wikipeda), I requested the file for deletion. This section can be archived now.--Edfyr (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

How to find the death time?

Hi, I uploaded File:Mapa toma de calama 1879 (A.Machuca).png, File:F.machuca-Lima1881.png, File:F.machuca-plano.batalla.de.miraflores.png, File:F.machuca-defensas de miraflores.png, and File:F.machuca-chorrillos.png from books written by Antonio Machuca, published in year 1921 and 1926.

I don't know the time of the author's death. I estimate that the maps are free now because there are 90 years since the publication. I would like to get your opinion in this case. --Keysanger 16:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we must delete yhese maps because author could be dead in 1959. If we do not know the death date we can't do anything--Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment "Francisco Antonio Machuca y Marín" Biographical dictionary Diccionario biográfico de Chile por Pedro Pablo Figueroa ... Impr. y encuadernacion Barcelona, 1897 - Chile. He seems to still be alive in 1897 as there is no death date. He is also alive in 1938 as he publishes another book then: "Escenas históricas coquimbanas" http://www.worldcat.org/title/escenas-historicas-coquimbanas/oclc/503189586. If all else fails, contacting someone who has cited his works in their own publications may reveal life dates. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

He was veteran of the War of the Pacific: [9]. I suppose 20 years old as the war began (1879) + He was 66 86 years old in 1946 --Keysanger 10:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC) (typo fixed --Keysanger 21:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC) )

Photos from journals

Are photos from European (Swiss, German, French, Polish) journals of the 20s or 30s really acceptable as PD-old, if the author is not credited in the journal itself? Can such photos be considered as anonymous? As much as I have understood up to now, anonymity has higher requirements.

Example: File:Eugénie Sokolnicka.jpeg

If not, it might concern tens of photos by the same user. --= (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That an image is not credited to anybody does not automatically mean that the author is not known. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This case is OK for me: we know where it was published and that the author is not credited. The chance to find the photographer is very slim. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

However, in the above linked case the template PD-old is not o.k., as the author is unknown. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} might be appropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers! So, what is the exact requirement, if the author is not credited in the source? 2. It seems to be connected with the chance to find the author - why should it be so improbable in this case? --= (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

To be on the safe side

Hi, the photographer died in 1941, so I want to upload his photos with {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1941}}. Now, some of the material comes from a tea table book, published in 1977, where the publisher claims the copyright and moreover states that "...the photographic documents belong to the library XYZ".

While I understand that it's acceptable to upload these pictures to Commons with above licence, I'd rather prefer to get a second opinion here before starting the scans... Thanks for your time --Jwh (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Where and when were the photos published for the first time? The Yeti 05:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ooops, I see now that I mixed up names, he died 1958...

But you're right I should have given more information. So in general, let's presume this 1941 death, photographer lived and worked in EU (Luxembourg), photographs may or may not have been published during his lifetime, a museum or library buys, heritates or gets his work somehow. They publish the pictures in tea table books, without mentioning if they had been pubished earlier but claim the copyright.

Is there a general rule for such a case on Commons - thought I read it, but can't find it any more. Thanks! --Jwh (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Movie screenshots

A still image taken on a movie set is a photograph, but what about an actual screenshot from a movie? Copyright-wise, is it a photograph (because it is a single image, not a movie), or it is still covered by copyright rules for cinematographic works? I'm asking because I'm not 100% sure, and the answer is crucial for the copyright protection term in some countries. Materialscientist (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It is derivative a work Materialscientist. So first its status depends from the original work copyright status and thus by copyright rules for cinematographic works. And usually when the law wants that the copyright of the movie and of the screenshot should be different uses the term screenshot. Moreover I think a photo is an artistic work not a mere reproduction.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, a 'movie still' (the 'technical term') is a component of the copyrighted film, and would normally be under the copyright that applies to the movie itself. A 'publicity photo' taken on the set, with a still camera, is a completely different work (though they often appear similar to stills). My understanding is that such photos were normally not taken during actual filming (flash, and noise, issues), but instead during one of the 'run-throughs' prior to the actual film take... they are often very similar to actual stills, however. Such 'publicity photos' were often, historically, distributed without a copyright notice (which placed them in the public domain), but actual evidence of such publication is needed. Revent^talk 04:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain & Ireland postcards

moved from Commons:Village pump#Great Britain & Ireland postcards

Can I assume these postcards are all pre WW I? I recently uploaded several unsend postcards of Kent.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Smiley.toerist where are those files? -- RTA 11:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I did give obvious clues: In the Category:Postcards of Kent and recent uploads of Smiley.toerist. These are (File:West Gate Canterbury postcard.jpg, File:St Martens church Canterbury.jpg and File:Dover postcard.jpg). Ireland was defacto independent from 1921 (free state), but the republic was only declared in 1949. How long backside of postcards kept the mention GB & Ireland is unclear.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I thinking about moving this discussion back to the Village Pump as this is not really Copyrigth question. The pictures are old enough. The only question is it before or after 1923 for the US licenses, but this is only incidental. There are more people there who may now more about postcard history in general.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the right place, as it is a copyright issue. Postcards are de facto published, so there is no issue about that point (compared to archive images). Any postcard from before WW2 is in the public domain in UK (anonymous or not). If anonymous, any pre-1945 postcard from Ireland is in the public domain there. The only issue is potential URAA restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen any URAA restoration examples of local anonymous postcards outside the US. It is unlikely that any postcards with the Great Britain & Ireland mention at the backside where published after 1921.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Er, no, postcards with human author attribution are 70pma in the UK regardless of when they were published or taken. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I would 'suspect' that many postcards (at least, those with poor documentation) are going to be 'ambiguous' with regards to the URAA. Anything published pre-1923 is PD in the US, and if it's 'potentially' pre-1923 it will probably be kept (at least, on URAA grounds) as not clearly restored. The records of the 'main' UK postcard publisher from the period were destroyed by German bombing during WW2... they might not be 'anonymous', but are definitively 'unknown' and unknowable. Revent^talk 05:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

archive.org

moved from: Commons:Village pump#archive.org

My question is about the policy here with the licenses of archive.org. So, if there is a free licence displayed on archive.org, how about uplaoding picutes from that here? Can we accept the licence from archive.org? Redlinux (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Much of the content on Archive has restrictive copyrights, See Terms of Use. I have not used this site as a source so far, so all I can say now, is show us some examples and we will look at them individually, case by case. In other words, the content should be viewed and considered in the same manner as any other content.--P.g.champion (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Exact. IA doesn't create content, and doesn't even scan documents. It only hosts content created and scanned elsewhere. So we have to review each case. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not quite correct. Some of the documents available from the Internet Archive have been scanned by the IA. For example, the IA are scanning the Wellcome collection in London as part of the UK Medical Heritage Library project - see here. Aa77zz (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, so I correct myself: 99.99% of the content is not scanned by IA. Yann (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I meant this [10] page - specially the cover, and a drawing and if possible the official picture of the author. The book was published in Northkorea, so I think, there had not been any personal rights, like copyright (and much more). Greeting Redlinux (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

According to our page on copyrights in Northkorea [11], there shouldn't be a problem. So I uploaded one important picture --> and noted the following reasons there: 1st, the book is older than 50 years, 2nd its published by the Kyungrang research center. Greetings Redlinux (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Sorry to say this, but the IA cannot be considered a 'reliable source' for copyright statuses. The IA hosts significant amounts of clearly copyrighted material, and relies on 'exemptions' that don't really work for Commons. Works from there need an independent rationale. Revent^talk 05:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that is all I found - and what I found is, I think, clearly. There is at least one whole Category with picture here from North Korea with the same licence and I added the suggestion from here [12]. Greetings Redlinux (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

United States movies before 1923

it:File:Ridolini esattore.png This is a screenshot of a 1921 movie from the United States The Rent Collector. Moreover can all screenshots of movies, or movies itself, from United States, published before 1923, be uploaded here? Thanks a lot--Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they can be. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In general, screenshots of movies should be fine. Movies themselves are more complex. For example, we have written music for a tiny part of silent movies, and only a recording of the soundtrack for a tiny handful. So any audio tracks are new recordings and need to be removed. The film itself may be a composite of multiple cuts from multiple markets (they'd use different cuts for different markets to keep them closer to the original generation); in a few cases they returned to the original filming and used new cuts decades after the original release when the original copies were wearing out. Even ignoring modern restoration, there's complex copyright questions about many silent films.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Elaborating on what Prosfilaes said... the 'original cut' of a pre-1923 movie, that was reproduced from the original (or a copy of the original) would be in the public domain in the US, due to copyright expiration. However... a later 'derivative version' of the film, even if compiled from earlier material, could be a new creative work, and the subject of a new copyright....a 'compilation' of material can be copyrightable, even if the source material is PD. What is essential, in all such cases, is a reliable history of the actual material uploaded. A still, even if obtained via a later version, has no new copyright, but an edited version (even if the edit was only to add a soundtrack) might be subject to a later copyright. Revent^talk 07:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Odd redirect

I can't grok this redirect by User:Jarekt. The reason given is "unused template - please use {{tl|Licensed-PD|PD-old-70|...}} instead" but the template seems to be used for half a dozen files, even now, years later. Revert? I noticed this because User:LX had referred to it.--Elvey (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what caused the redirect to fail but I reverted it for other reasons. {{PD-art-70-3d}} notifies the reader that while the subject of the image is out of copyright, the photo itself constitutes a copyrighted work of its own. {{PD-old-70}} though is mostly used for 2-dimensional works where a faithful reproduction would not create a new copyright. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually it seems not a copyright tags. On the opposite way it needs a copyright tag for the derivative, 2d work. Ihmo. De728631--Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very useful tag. It's not a separate law, or aspect of law -- it just applies PD-old-70 like normal, just specifying that the photographed work is 3D. I guess it implies that we need a separate license for the photo, but that is generally the assumption. If someone specifies a tag for both the pictured object and the photo, using PD-old-70 directly for the object is just fine. Do we need -3D versions for all our license tags? If not... I would probably delete the tag or re-institute the redirect. I could see maybe making it a wrapper tag like PD-Art, although that one is there because we need to specify that we don't need a license for the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, we do have {{Licensed-PD}} which requires two separate license tags. But I agree that a simple PD-old fits nicely in there as well. De728631 (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think, as noted in the conversation 'way' back, that using {{Art photo}} is a much better solution, where you can indicate the authorship (and license) of the depicted work and the image itself seperately. Revent^talk 08:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

morgueFile license

http://morguefile.com/license/morguefile

Someone came into the 'license reviewer' IRC channel and asked about this, but then left before anyone responded... mentioning it here so it will appear in on-wiki search results. It's my impression that the license is (as the questioner seemed to feel) not compatible due to the 'stand alone basis' clause. Revent^talk 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Where is the 'license reviewer' IRC channel? Never heard about that. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: #wikimedia-commons-lr It's not very active, tbh. Revent^talk 04:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

More to the point, this website's own T&C states very clearly, that those image can only be used at the users own risk and that they take no responsibility themselves. So the license they supposedly provide is moot. Not worth in e-ink its written on.--P.g.champion (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

There's an ongoing discussion at w:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 9#File:Ted Cruz presidential campaign logo.png regarding w:File:Ted Cruz presidential campaign logo.png. I would argue the three shapes making up the flames fall below the threshold of originality, as similar or more complex campaign logos have been found to fall below the threshold, see below. MB298 (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. PD-textlogo is just for...text. And PD-shape is just for basic, unoriginal geometric shapes. These three include nontextual designs (which aren't simple shapes) arranged in an original manner. Since we're not lawyers, we need to apply COM:PRP by rejecting stuff that's not obviously simple geometry, unless we have professional statements to the contrary; File:Best Western logo.svg is good to keep because it's absurd to tell the Copyright Office that they're wrong, but other stuff that we feel might be similar should be deleted because it's not unambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Best Western logo is below the threshold because the "W" is a stylized letter. I would tend to agree that the graphical part is probably above the threshold. I'm not sure about the Jindal and Huckabee ones either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Jindal and Huckabee lines are simple enough to fall under PD-logo. MB298 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously doubt that, especially for the Huckabee one. There are a number of elements being arranged there; you can get a "selection and arrangement" copyright even if all the elements are PD-shape. The Jindal one is on the borderline -- the design on the J is the question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I've opened a new DR about the Huckabee logo. Even though it's 'simple shapes', there is nothing obvious about the arrangement... it seems clearly copyrightable to me. Revent^talk 05:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rubio one is a simple text logo, you can't copyright the shape of a map. That would mean that anybody who makes a red version of the lower 48 is violating copyright. Huckabee's logo are simple shapes: lines, stars, text. Spartan7W (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

An arrangement of simple shapes can be copyrightable if it's 'original' enough, but the Jindal and Rubio ones are IMO fine.... both are text and stylized letters. Revent^talk 15:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Spanish currency really okay?

Commons:Currency says that images of Spanish pesetas are okay to use on Wikimedia Commons, but the Rules for Reproduction of Spanish currency says "The use of banknotes or coins in pesetas or of images thereof for advertising purposes requires the prior authorisation of the Banco de España, in accordance with the rules of Monetary Circular 1/1995 of 28 February 1995, except for reproductions in books or teaching material, which do not require it." This does not seem to be a compatible license, as per Commons:Licensing "Commercial use of the work must be allowed." Is this really okay? --Ahecht (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that is more of a trademark restriction than copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons is by definition a teaching material per COM:SCOPE, so according to that provision it's ok, being an exemption. Also, there's a mention of the 1999 Report on the Legal Protection of Banknotes in the European Union Member States (internal page 63): "No significant jurisprudence on the application of copyright to banknotes" for Spain". Brandmeister (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

COM:SCOPE also says "To be considered freely licensed, the copyright owner has to release the file under an irrevocable licence which ... [p]ermits free reuse for any purpose (including commercial)." --Ahecht (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The aforementioned Bank's statement implies that Commons as a teaching material does not require the Bank's permission and as such pesetas from Commons could be used for commercial purposes. Brandmeister (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like circular logic to me. --Ahecht (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The question is if the restriction is based on copyright, or other non-copyright restrictions. If only the latter, then it does not affect the "free" status. So which rights are they invoking for the restriction you are talking about? With currency, there can often be specific laws which cover it, which would be separate than copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Got it. The Non-copyright restrictions makes sense, as they are quoting rules of use, not copyright laws. --Ahecht (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Exif

File:Staatstheater Darmstadt - Foyer Kleines Haus.jpg Wie ist mit dem Foto aufgrund der Urheberrechteanmerkungen in der Exif umzugehen? --störfix (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work..." [13] So wie ich das sehe, brauchen wir hier entweder eine ausdrückliche Bestätigung, dass der Eintrag in der Exif ignoriert werden darf, oder die Freigabe unter den CC-Lizenzen ist ungültig. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Translation to English for more input: File:Staatstheater Darmstadt - Foyer Kleines Haus.jpg has a copyright notice in the Exif data that says: "Royalties applicable in case of reprinting. Pay to account ..." In my opinion this renders the CC licenses granted for this image invalid since CC explicitely grants a royalty-free right of re-use (see the quote above). While CC in general does not rule out commercial opportunities for the licensor, this seems not the way how it's supposed to be done. De728631 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

US Grant

I know nothing about this picture except that it is a picture of President U.S. Grant (probably in the late 1860s. Can I upload it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can. You should use either {{PD-US-unpublished}} or {{Pd-old-1923}} template for it. Ruslik (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

1915 photo

Is it OK to add this photo to Wikimedia Commons? It was created in 1915 in the USA by Charles Allen Winter (American, 1869–1942), but I don't know when it was first published. Please advise. Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If the photo was first published in the US before 1923, is fine. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It all depends on the publication date :-) It sounds like it came from the estate of one of the pictured persons, and was donated to some archives. That then sounds like, at the very least, several copies were made at the time and given out to the participants. The photo then remained in their papers until donation to a library. Publication, of course, is a murky subject in these cases. You could argue that it was never legally published (since that would have needed to be with permission of the author or the author's heirs). If that is the case, it's PD-old-70 (or, to be more accurate, {{PD-US-unpublished}}). It's possible that distributing the photo to the friends counted as publication right then -- if there were no express conditions on what the friends could do with the photo, that qualified as general publication (and not limited publication) according to one of the doctrines about publication under the 1909 law -- in which case it was PD-US-no_notice (and if not, PD-1923). Really, the only way it is still under copyright is if it was first published between 1989 through 2002 -- and that would have needed to be with permission of the author's heirs -- or perhaps published with copyright notice between 1964 and 1989. In short... the copyright status is a bit murky, but the odds strongly favor PD status one way or another. I would support keeping it, as it's almost certainly either PD-1923 or PD-US-unpublished, but it is the kind of thing which can be put up for debate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent explanation. Very helpful. -- M2545 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"Open License" and CC-0

I am sorry this is not a question for Commons, but this is probably the place among Wikimedia projects where people know best about the legal details of licenses. d:Wikidata:Bot requests#License is a discussion (which turned to French after the main points were given in English) about whether French population data released under the French governmental "Open License" can be imported to Wikidata where data are under CC-0.

"Open License" only requires to acknowledge the date and the source (the French national statistics bureau, INSEE) and does not require to keep the same license like CC-SA does. So

some say that not CC-0 but only a license like CC-BY requiring appropriate credit would comply with the "Open License",
while others say that the license can be changed to CC-0 after the data has been imported to Wikidata in compliance with the "Open License" (date as qualifier and INSEE as reference of the Wikidata value).

Which view is right?

The lack of official "Open" French data on the shared repository Wikidata is a real pain on several Wikipedias (I saw some impatience about this for instance on the Hungarian Wikipedia), so an exact answer to this question is important. Thank you in advance. Oliv0 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that Wikidata is a re-user of the INSEE dataset, so, it must credit them. As long as the data is hosted on sites of the WMF, the attribution shall remain. Other people using these French datasets could either get them on Wikidata or directly at the INSEE, I'd think of WMF site as of a kind of "transparent proxy", there. So, while CC-By is really logic, quite a no-brainer,the idea, well, actually your idea, [[User:Oliv0|Oliv0], of changing that to CC0 is weird. The same stuff in French: J'estime que Wikidata est un réutilisateur des données de l'INSEE, est comme tel, est obligé den mentionner cette source - et de conserver cette mention intacte aussi long que les données sont présentes sur un site quelconque de la WMF. Je ne pense pas qu'il soit important où une personne trouve les données recherchées, les Wikis me sembles semblables à un "proxy transparent" ici, puisqu'on peut aussi consulter l'INSEE directement. Ainsi, pendant que la license CC-By est très logique, l'idée, ou plutôt ton idée, Oliv0, de changer cette license vers la CC0 est simplement bizarre (et j'évite le mot de Cambronne, ici...) Regards / salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: CC-0 is not my idea but written at the bottom of all Wikidata: pages: all data in the main namespace is available under CC-0. Oliv0 (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You should read meta:Wikilegal/Database Rights, and be aware that the upload of material that is 'legal' under US law might subject the uploader, if in a non-US jurisdiction, to legal ramifications. Revent^talk 07:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

To elaborate... most 'data' is not copyrightable under US law, only the 'selection and arrangement' of the data included is copyrightable. 'Arrangement' is a bit moot in the case of Wikidata, where the data is transcribed into a unique format, but if there is any creative aspect to what is in the included dataset this could be an issue. If the dataset is, however, 'comprehensive' (it includes 'everything' in it's scope) then it is probably not copyrightable under US law... so it's 'legal' to upload from the sense of Wikidata, but might not be 'legal' for a specific person to upload, depending on where they live.

I would suspect that most datasets that people would be interested in uploading to Wikidata (things like census information) would not be copyrightable under US law, but that is not legal advice. Revent^talk 07:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: About the same conclusion has been given on fr:WP:Legifer/mars 2016#Changement de licence, so it seems everything is OK and I just have to wait for a bot owner on d:WD:Bot requests#License. Oliv0 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

useful-object-UK?

Wondering whether UK law has an exception like US law does, as per {{Useful-object-US}}. If so this should be uploadable, per a {{Useful-object-UK}} and the de minimus exception.--Elvey (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the UK law has a comparable exception. See this. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Done! Great. I created the template and uploaded File:Moka_Express_-_Espresso_Coffee_Diptych_(2313043664).jpg.--Elvey (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Both {{Useful-object-US}} and {{Useful-object-UK}} are too long in my opinion. It would be better to make both of them shorter, probably merge them into a new tag (e.g. {{PD-useful object}}) and change COM:UA into a page which specifically discusses useful object legislation in different countries (eligible for copyright in many European countries, ineligible for copyright in many English-speaking countries). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Trophies

I'm currently on a work secondment at UEFA headquarters in Switzerland, where they have all of their trophies on permanent display in their reception area. I've taken photos of all of them from multiple angles, but I'm not sure of their copyright status and whether I'm allowed to upload the photos here as free images. Although they wouldn't typically be considered sculptures or works of art, they are 3D items that were designed by someone who surely claims copyright over them. However, they are on permanent display in an area generally accessible to the public on tours and such (except when they actually have to be awarded at the end of each season), which makes me think the photos could be considered free. Can someone please advise? PeeJay2K3 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Switzerland's FOP doesn't allow for the photography of works situated inside a building, per Commons:FOP#Switzerland. Revent^talk 16:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Do you think I'd be able to get away with uploading the images to Wikipedia and claiming Fair Use? PeeJay2K3 (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably, if they are actually a 'subject of discussion' in the article. Just using them as 'illustrations' might get objections. Revent^talk 13:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Luc Gelinas.jpg

So, on the image File:Luc Gelinas.jpg, the uploader linked to a tweet asking the pictured person, Luc Gelinas, if they could use the picture. Luc Gelinas responded, saying "avec plaisir...c'est pas la meilleure mais c'est la seule face que j'ai !", meaning (according to Twitter's translation via Bing) "with pleasure... it is not the best but it's the only face I have!" Does this count as evidence of permission? Elisfkc (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Use" seems a bit narrow to me. Can we also sell it for money, modify it, etc.? COM:L does require the permission to cover these as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The permission looks insufficient, but the uploader won't get a good explanation if you use {{subst:npd}} and might therefore not understand why the image was tagged. I'll convert it into a deletion request where the explanation can be more detailed. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks everyone. Elisfkc (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is CCTV really public domain?

I was rather skeptical of this claim that CCTV images are public domain (seemingly worldwide?) on File:Salah Abdeslam.jpg. Does anyone know anything about this? Jolly Janner (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Some links in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salah Abdeslam.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

CCTV is one of these things where there are few precedents to work with.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's been proven one way or another, i.e. I don't think there are precedents (at least I don't remember any). It is true that many of the normally copyrightable aspects of photographs / videos would not be present in them; the question is if there is enough left. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A fixed viewpoint camera pointed for security purposes should not be copyright in the US, IMO. w:en:Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices has a useful summary; apparently the Indian casino case I was thinking about never had the issue taken up by a court of law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

At least in this case, there is no doubt about the copyright status. In France, copyright results from the "originality as the expression of the author's personality". This is obviously lacking here. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There is actually some case law on CCTV cameras see, https://books.google.com/books?id=PaicAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=closed+circuit+cameras++copyright?&source=bl&ots=fr880_Ibl7&sig=Q0V0rg-jLmeWk9H8O9OOMys8Zio&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRwM_Bm9LLAhVY6WMKHUa6B8gQ6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=closed%20circuit%20cameras%20%20copyright%3F&f=false , particularly Based on the 1988 Act, "... or captured by a closed circuit TV camera has copyright just as much as if it were recorded on traditional translucent film..." I think you will find that films and soundtracks of CCTV cameras are considered to have copyright by reading the remainder of the section of the book Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy By Charlotte Waelde, Graeme Laurie, Abbe Brown, Smita Kheria, Jane Cornwell, from Oxford Press. Since the questions was "are they PD worldwide" I think at least this citation shows that no, they're not PD worldwide. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

From how I read the above, if an image is 'fixed' by CCTV it would be considered copyrightable if it is also considered to be copyrightable on film reel, vcr tape or dvd. The issue with the CCTV camera's is not what medium the images are captured on but the creativity involved in capturing the images. If a CCTV camera's position is fixed and its movement is pre-programmed, under usual circumstances it would be hard to argue that the image can be considered to be original. It would not be as hard to argue for originality if the CCTV was preprogrammed for a specific artistic purpose related to the imagery that is captured. Like programming a street cam to point to several specific spots in a specific order to capture a street performance. Rybkovich (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed.--Elvey (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I opened a DR for the template: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-recording device. At least in Germany (and, contrary to the statement above, probably in most countries of the European Union), CCTV recordings are protected. I provided a more detailed statement in the DR. This template is much too easy to be used widely. Yellowcard (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Salah Abdeslam.jpg appears to have a bogus copyright tag. It states that the file is below the threshold of originality and therefore is ineligible for copyright. This is an incorrect conclusion; being below the threshold of originality does not automatically imply that something is ineligible for copyright. Additionally, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salah Abdeslam.jpg only discusses originality but fails to discuss when something is copyrighted. In Europe, films which are below the threshold of originality are protected by copyright for 50 years from creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This seems to be another construction that might sound reasonable, but contradicts actual copyright laws and doctrines (the same with template:PD-anon-70, see talk page). Yellowcard (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

{{PD-anon-70}} states that the copyright to an anonymous work expires 70 years after publication in the European Union. This isn't always true in Sweden. If the work isn't published within 70 years from creation, the Swedish copyright term becomes one of 70 years from creation, 50 years from publication and 50 years from the death of the anonymous author, with complex rules for choosing the correct one of the three terms. Additionally, if the term expires before the first publication, then the copyright is restored upon publication, with re-expiration 25 years after publication. However, this is another problem: we shouldn't have templates for anonymous works which cover more than one country. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like we have another highly visible example at File:Brussels suspects CCTV.jpg in Belgium. I'm not sure we have a clear cut reason as of yet to claim CCTV is public domain. I'd feel more comfortable deleting them out of precaution. The most important reason here is is it public domain in the United States? Jolly Janner (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We can't just claim that CCTV stills are always PD, as laws and case law can be different from country to country. So the other important question is: are stills from CCTV films actually considered PD in Belgium? If there's no proof for that (and the file description doesn't provide any), we can't just assume that it's PD just because it would be nice to keep the file. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner and Kam Solusar: I fully agree with you. That's why I had tagged the file as lacking permission ([14]), but I was reverted by the Commons admin (!) Steinsplitter with the reason: "Taken by a automatic cam, no permission needed from automatic cam" ([15]). On his talk page, I argued why that is an invalid argument and gave counter examples — without any effort. Yellowcard (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see that people are discussing the issue regarding the copyright status of CCTV here. @Yellowcard: Adding no permission template is controversial in such cases, so you schould start a regular deletion request. The counter examples was a german law which is not relevant for the file in question, the relevant jurisdiction is belgium. The argumentum ad personam which you posted on my talkpage was not helpful at all. As i told you on my talkpage, if you think the file is a copyvio feel free to start a deletion request. best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It can be a difficult question. If someone set up a camera to say capture traffic on the roads, they may have done enough positioning and framing to qualify for copyright on the images or video they capture, particularly images of the type they were trying to get. I don't think it's a requirement that a human actually be behind the camera at the moment. On the other hand, I fail to see how a security camera set up by an installation company would ever really qualify for copyright in the U.S. Chapter 300 of the Copyright Compendium states: Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author. As one of the examples of that, they say that medical imaging produced by x-rays, ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging, or other diagnostic equipment is not copyrightable. That's not a direct correlation to a CC camera, but it could well be along the same lines. It might depend on the circumstances of the camera setup itself, but I could see that many of them may not be copyrightable in the US. I'm not sure we have any absolute precedent.

As for Europe, the Copyright Duration Directive says: The protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes. A photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account. The protection of other photographs should be left to national law. So, it would seem as though such photos are below the "photographic work" threshold there -- but they may still be protected depending on national law. A number of countries do have protection for simpler works (see Commons:Simple photographs). Germany is one such country, and I believe there are some rulings using that to protect medical x-rays and the like, so in that situation it seems logical that CC camera results would also be protected even if the same items would not be in the U.S. But, not all countries have such separate protection -- French law does not seem to have anything further than the normal threshold of originality, so the situation there could be very different. Stefan2 mentions the related rights the EU gives to the producers of films (separately from the authors) -- but the definition of "film" in the 2006 directive says it needs to be a work in the first place, so that protection may not hold for something which falls below the copyrightable threshold of originality in the first place -- a main goal seems to be to protect against piracy and CC TV seems pretty far outside the intended scope of those related rights. Again, I don't remember any precedent being mentioned which would definitively show that such things are copyrightable. Belgium's law (article 2(5)) says: The term of protection for photographs that are original in that they constitute the author’s own intellectual creation, shall be determined in accordance with the foregoing paragraphs (with the foregoing paragraphs being the normal EU copyright durations). But, I don't see any separate term of protection for photographs that do not pass that threshold, so the situation may be similar to France. It's arguable that they are not protected. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Copyright law in (former) French colonies

What copyright restrictions are present on photos produced in the colonies of the French Colonial Empire, specifically, Gabon in 1940? Indy beetle (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If they were first published in Gabon, then use Gabon's current rules. Looks like they were part of the OAPI's Bangui agreement (50pma) as of 1982, but overrode that with their own copyright law in 1987 (seen here), which is also 50pma, though for photographs and anonymous works it's 50 years from making available to the public. That might mean made available before 1946 to avoid the URAA -- anything later would still be under copyright in the U.S. The Bangui agreement has since gone to 70pma but not sure if that affected Gabon's law. But... if the photo was first published in another country, then that country's laws would apply. The difference between where it was created and where it was published is crucial. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Since there is no wikitext options for Gabon, how would I try and upload this properly (assuming the photo was published in Gabon in 1940)? Indy beetle (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I guess someone could create a PD-Gabon tag, or failing that, you could use PD-because. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Peanuts Movie

Hi! en:The Peanuts Movie ( 2015 American 3D computer-animated comedy film produced by Blue Sky Studios and distributed by 20th Century Fox) was uploaded on Commons via File:The Peanuts Movie Uploaded by Hossain (Download Group BD).ogv (per logs deleted on 04.03.2016). However, I can still access & watch the full film via the Commons link provided by this post from 21.03.2016 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/download.group.bd/photos/a.943751912361027.1073741827.943684849034400/977861705616714/?type=3&theater. Why? Gunnex (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Solved via https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T130992. Gunnex (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

WHTX (AM) logos

File:Warrenwhtx1570b (1).jpg, File:WHTX-AM 1570.png and File:1570WHTXlogo.png are being used in en:WHTX (AM). Each of these files has been uploaded to Commons: the first two as own work and the last one as {{PD-text}}. I don't think the first two are really "own work", but they may be OK as {{PD-textlogo}}. The official webiste given for the station in its Wikipedia article is dead and I've been googling for some kind of official source (or archived of such a source) to verify the logos, but have had no luck so far. The third file is also not provided with any source information other than it was transferred from Wikipedia amd was created by an editor who hasn't edited in almost 3 years. So, I'm not sure what to do here or whether anything needs to be done at all. Would it be acceptable to convert the two "own work" to PD-textlogo? What should be used as the source for those files if that's the case? Should the "PD-text" logo be changed to "PD-textlogo"? What should be used for the source of that file be if that's the case? Should these all be tagged with {{No permission since}} or {{Copyvio}} since they might be non-free logos?

Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Licensing question for French Mandate of Syria images

Does anyone know whether pictures taken/published in Syria during French Mandatory rule come under French copyright or Syrian copyright? I'm asking because this question has been raised in an image review at the FA nomination of Hasan al-Kharrat. I've always understood such images to be under Syrian copyright, the way that pictures taken/published in the British Mandate of Palestine come under Israeli copyright. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say Syrian. It was still a different territory and not part of France proper -- India joined the Berne Convention separately from the UK in 1928 when it was still a colony, for example. Historical French law may be part of the story, if it was applied during the mandate and was never repealed, but not modern French law. I would use current Syrian laws, i.e. PD-Syria. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll relay this to the FAC page. Cheers --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

TOO in China/Hong Kong

Does someone know what the treshold of originality is for Chinese logos? I wanted to resolve the contradiction between the licensing of en:File:MTR Corporation icon.svg and File:MTR Corporation icon.svg and I need to know the copyright status difference for this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Info: File:MTR Corporation icon.svg seems too simple, and more complex logos from the PRC was kept. Anyway, is better than a chinese user or admin answer that, based on the laws of the PRC. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

File:前清点翠首饰.jpg

I suspect that this photo is a violation of copyright.User:DaniAtUSA upload three photos.File:三子欢庆点翠夹冠.jpg\File:双龙八凤点翠皇冠.jpg to find the original on the web.This one did not find the original, how to deal with?--Berthe (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Copyright Law in Greenland

What copyright laws apply to photographs taken and/or published in Greenland? Indy beetle (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I would expect it to be similar if not the same as Denmark. Some EU-wide laws may be appropriate too. Jolly Janner (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Images of emoji fonts

For anyone not aware of this, emoji are fonts (the presentation varies from system to system, but often .ttf files) that display coloured pictures. It's normal for static images of copyrighted fonts to be fine on Wikimedia, even for copyrighted fonts (as here, but are emoji different? While it may seem like emoji are unlike other fonts, non-character fonts are actually quite common (for example Wingdings) and have been for well over a century. I ask since a sample image I uploaded for the font Apple Color Emoji (copyrighted, but installed on every iPhone) seems to have just been deleted as here, but I'm hazy about the details since I was never given any notification about this. Blythwood (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Emojis are just like any graphic, and the licensing depends of its compexity, the source and how are licensed. Then, the emojis found as Unicode characters themselves are in the PD. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean the emojis found as Unicode characters themselves? The Unicode Consortium is very clear that the fonts used in the Unicode charts are not public domain and may not be extracted from their PDF files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's not what I was asking about. I'm asking about whether it's OK to create sample images of the specific copyrighted font Apple Color Emoji. Blythwood (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Actually if you read the reason it was deleted, the problem was it was a collage. A collage is a group of several images all pasted together on one image. By the rules here, every image in a collage must be uploaded, sourced and licensed correctly prior to creation of a collage of the images. So this really has nothing to do with the emoji, and everything to do with the six separate graphic images for which the claim was own work. While you may have redrawn from other items, the base copyright of what you drew from is the issue, not the idea of Emoji themselves. If you continue to create these kinds of images, please find out how the image you copied is/was licensed, Commons can only take free images which are within scope. Thanks to Amitie 10g for the good answer about the Unicode characters. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Typographer Stephen Coles wrote here: "like most fonts bundled with a system, I don’t think there is anything in the license agreement preventing you from using the fonts in commercial work." This should be confirm-able. Besides which, it is indeed normal for static images of copyrighted fonts to be fine on Wikimedia, even for copyrighted fonts. --Elvey (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

From the OSX license agreement:E. Fonts. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you may use the fonts included with the Apple Software to display and print content while running the Apple Software; however, you may only embed fonts in content if that is permitted by the embedding restrictions accompanying the font in question. These embedding restrictions can be found in the Font Book/Preview/Show Font Info panel.

Flipping through the fonts in Font Book, I find that Apple Color Emoji is the only font that comes with NO copyright notice. Interesting, even though they haven't been needed for years. The font has no embedding restrictions. (Incidentally, I noticed what to my eye seems to be entertaining legal bullshit™ in Didot's copyright notice: "The digitally encoded machine readable software for producing the Typefaces licensed to you is now the property of Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG and its licensors, and may not be reproduced, used, displayed, modified, disclosed or transferred without the express written approval of Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG.".)--Elvey (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Typefaces and calligraphy are not copyrightable in the US, that's why they're fine. This is a picture; the fact that it is stored in a font is irrelevant. One can use it in a commercial work, but I seriously doubt the original license lets it be redistributed for reuse by people who didn't buy the original font.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The deletion notes: "For collages source and license for every used image is needed." Fair enough. But User:Ellin Beltz's "By the rules here, every image in a collage must be uploaded, sourced and licensed correctly prior to creation of a collage of the images." seems excessive. What rule requires that? Not Commons:Collages. It would make sense if the licenses were not obviously the same for each component of the collage, but here, that is the case. No? I tried to search PAG for collage, but the search tool seems to be broken - no results. I see no reason Blythwood's File:Apple Color Emoji sample.png shouldn't be restored and the necessary copyright tags and info added. Per Commons:Licensing#Fonts, {{tl:PD-font}}, etc. --Elvey (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually Elvey, Commons:Collages requires proper source and license of each source image - as is required for all images on Commons. Here I directly quote from that page: (quote)"To comply with the licensing of the images used in a collage, two things are required:

Attribution of the source images
Correct and compatible licensing

The first one is a no-brainer, simply providing links to the images used will be enough to comply."(end quote) Please see their example/speciman image for the item by item source and license required of collages and the remainder of the page for additional guidance. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Actually Ellin Beltz, Commons:Collages requires proper source and license of each source image - as is required for all images on Commons - is part and parcel of the point I was making. You seem to have a talent for plugging your ears, so to speak, when I talk. Read! Again: I see no reason Blythwood's File:Apple Color Emoji sample.png shouldn't be restored and the necessary copyright tags and info added. Per Commons:Licensing#Fonts, {{tl:PD-font}}, etc.--Elvey (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz, Again: "By the rules here, every image in a collage must be uploaded, sourced and licensed correctly prior to creation of a collage of the images." seems excessive. I ask you again: What rule requires that part in bold? No rule, I say. I don't know why this seems too complicated for you to understand, but it's troubling.--Elvey (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Technically, if the file page of the collage itself provides the source and copyright information for it's constituent parts, that should be sufficient without prior upload of each one separately, but we must be able to explicitly verify the copyright status of each component... uploading them individually is merely easier. Revent^talk 07:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my point, except for the "uploading them individually is merely easier" bit. Thanks for noting you agree with me. Ellin seems incapable of hearing anything I say. --Elvey (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: The rationale behind the 'fonts are not copyrightable' rule is that the shapes of letters are common property...they are of ancient and undeterminable authorship. Emojis, however, are not 'letters'... even though distributed 'as fonts', they are individual works of copyrightable authorship. Simply scaling them down and distributing them 'as a font' does not change that... the US Code of Federal Regulations merely exempts "typeface as typeface" from copyright, and the Copyright Compendium describes the exempted material as " typeface or mere variations of typographic ornamentation or lettering", and then elaborates that a typeface is "a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters with repeating design elements that are consistently applied in a notational system that is intended to be used in composing text or other combinations of characters." These definitions don't cover emojis, which are not used to 'compose text'.... they are not a 'typeface', in the sense the USCO uses, even if 'technically' distributed as a font. Revent^talk 07:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, mostly. Your claim regarding the rationale behind the 'fonts are not copyrightable' rule having to to with the shapes of letters being of ancient and undeterminable authorship - can you back up that claim with a more specific reference to a reliable source? It sounds plausible, but that doesn't quite satisfy. You mention the CFR... where in the CFR? I believe that the reason any typeface is PD is that it is a useful object (an object having "an intrinsic utilitarian function"). Congress has spoken to this, saying, The Committee has considered, but chosen to defer, the possibility of protecting the design of typefaces. A "typeface" can be defined as a set of letter, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters. and Congress has, in fact, been consistent in opposing protection for typeface designs, and the legislative history cannot reasonably be construed otherwise. This is quoted/argued at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfs/essay2.html . Given the bits I've bolded, I think the definition probably does cover emojis. --Elvey (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Further thoughts or is the time ripe to restore File:Apple Color Emoji sample.png and add the necessary copyright tags and info, per Commons:Licensing#Fonts, {{tl:PD-font}}, the above, etc.? Elvey (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What the Committee has said is only relevant in the context of the actual law. 37 CFR 202.1 says "The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained: (a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents; ... (e) Typeface as typeface." The reason a typeface is PD is because the law says so, not because it's a useful object.

Any image could be put in a color font file, so it's insufficient to say that mere presence in a color font file makes something typeface. I think we should move conservatively; if an image presented as a JPG or PNG is something that our current interpretation of the guidelines would classify as PD, it would do so as part of a font, but presence as part of a font file doesn't change anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I corrected your indentation. I'll defer to consensus once determined, of course. Your quote mentions "familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation" and "smileys like :-), :-( etc are familiar symbols and emoji could be seen as mere typographic variations of said designs. -Elvey (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone else quoted the CFR before I replied, but it's at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/202.1 ... it just says that 'typeface as typeface' is not a subject of copyright. While I think it would be reasonable to argue that some 'specific' emojis (like a smiley) are not copyrightable, just packaging a copyrightable image in the 'form' of an emoji does not remove an existing copyright... @Blythwood: 's collage included works that would be pretty clearly copyrightable in any other context. Revent^talk 05:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: The phrase 'ancient and undeterminable authorship' was mine (explaining why), but that actual 'typefaces' are not a subject of copyright is a principle that long predates modern laws, and the US Congress explicitly declined to change that in 1976. I've seen references, though I do have them at hand, going back to the 19th century where it was ruled (and I am rephrasing, of course) that a typeface itself, as a merely decorative variation on something that previously existed, was utilitarian and not copyrightable original authorship. Something like a drawing of an apple or a cow (things included in this collage) are not subject to the same rationale. Revent^talk 06:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think emojis are utilitarian. They are meant to be used as communication tools. And see new comment, above.--Elvey (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Public domain question related to a Flickr sourced file

Hello!

I just came across File:Alström's_Warbler-Seicercus_soror.jpg in the review queue of Flickr. It has the PD mark at the source. But according to Alström's warbler, the subject that is depicted, the photograph may be taken in China or Vietnam. Both countries do not provide legal provisions for an author to release his work as public domain as far as I have understood our guides here. Specifically, the relevant subsections of COM:CRT state something about "perpetual moral rights", rights which would IMHO be waived under the PD concept. So, the license review failed, as the chosen "license" is not applicable in the alleged country of origin. What could be done there? Contacting the photographer on Flickr and asking for a CC0 or a CC-By licensing? Something else? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Public domain mark is a tough question in general; there is an argument that it's meant to be dedicating a work to public domain, and there is another argument that it doesn't mean anything. However, in this case, I'm going to cheat. I'm going to look at some other images from the Flickr user's gallery, specifically the Birds album. They're all marked Public Domain Mark.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/71670325@N03/18544768318/in/album-72157654112455115/ - clearly watermarked copyright by Arkive.org
https://www.flickr.com/photos/71670325@N03/19371315973/in/album-72157654112455115/ - likewise
https://www.flickr.com/photos/71670325@N03/20589489735/in/album-72157654112455115/ - clearly watermarked copyright Fuente InBio
https://www.flickr.com/photos/71670325@N03/17412941564/in/album-72157654112455115/ - clearly watermarked PlanetScott.com

So I'm going to say that this Flickr user's Public Domain Mark is worth about as much as Chris Christie's chances of winning the US presidential nomination. The Democratic one. Er, sorry, noticed you're German. Let's say it's equal to the chance of Angela Merkel joining the Deutsche Kommunistische Partei. --GRuban (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

LOOOL, OK, then let us order some snow, transfer it on the Kola peninsula and make snowballs for those screaming souls down there. They'll be in dire need for refreshments. And President Christie will pay for the fuel expenses, as God had not ordered the global warming... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@GRuban: @Grand-Duc: Flickr account added to the bot blacklist, which will push future uploads for manual review. Revent^talk 05:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

File:BBC Three logo.svg and File:BBC Earth logo.png

Do File:BBC Three logo.svg and File:BBC Earth logo.png fall below the threshold of originality for the UK? There are identical files for each (en:File:BBC Three logo.svg and en:File:BBC Earth logo.png) uploaded locally to English Wikipedia which probably should be deleted per en:Template:db-f8 if the licensing of their Commons' counterparts is correct. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Those two should definitely be deleted as it uses more than just non-standard font (although the ones on Wikipedia should just be changed from fair-use to free-use, because they are free in US). I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Category:BBC logos should be transferred to Wikipedia en mass under the same reason. File:BBC America.svg looks like it's a standard font, however. Jolly Janner (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Jolly Janner. Do you suggest discussing each of the two files separately at COM:DR or as part of a discussion on the entire category. For reference, File:CX3v3s4WAAEl6Rk.jpg is pretty much the same as FIle:BBC Three logo.svg. The licensing on the former is being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Luke de paul. If the jpg version is considered to be non-free and thus unsuitable for Commons, then the same could probably about the svg version, can't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The best method would be to hold an annual purge of these types of categories, but we don't have enough volunteers. So yeah, I would suggest a mass transfer for all but the most obvious logos in that category or you could get a step further and do it for Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom since the same principle holds true. AFAIK the only Commons case to refer to is the original plain format BBC logo, because it used a public domain font and nothing else. It looks like that benchmark has been incorrectly lowered (maybe even without consultation) to include any logo which is just text. As for your last question, yes. It looks like you already mentioned that in the deletion request, so I presume an admin will clean that up after closure. Jolly Janner (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Blatantly stolen photo

I am not sure if here is proper placement for this, but File:Lcms lutheran pastor being ordained.jpg image is erroneously published under a public domain copyright license on this site. This is far from accurate; a personal image, permissions were never granted for it to be copied from a private gallery for publishing (All Rights are reserved). Now the image is published on other sites under the false license proclaimed here. I would like to see this issue resolved, image removed. Thank you 216.186.177.94 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

216.186.177.94

How is it blatant? Do you have any evidence you can share with us? Where is this private gallery you speak of? I urge you to create an account and/or log in and provide it if you do. The uploader, User:Shark96z claims to have taken it and has retired. Nothing obvious from a Google Image Search.--Elvey (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Account created. The photo comes from a private and secure gallery of images featuring this pastoral ordination, previously located on my personal Facebook account. Currently I do not have access to the original files on my old computer (the image is from 2008), and the photo album on the site has since been removed. I am aware of the security of my photos on social media; whomever took my image had access to this private album, by default had to be someone I interact with on the site. My apologies as I have no further proof of this instance, yet I am aware and can recognize my photos when I stumble on them taken and published elsewhere. Eipotclbmurg (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Shark96z has blatantly stolen a great many images. I nominated a number which had been transferred from en-wiki, which had obvious pre-existing versions on the internet (and a great many different authors, all claimed as "own work"). I don't think I was able to find a smoking gun version of that particular image, but I think I got distracted when looking for them. It's been so many years since they have been uploaded it can be hard to find original Internet sources, but I'm guessing most of that user's uploads are copyvios. A couple looked legit, and he got sort-of permission after the fact once at en:User_talk:Shark96z/Archive_1#Your_use_of_my_photos, but most I think are bad. I would delete based on the above claim in this case. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/12#My image being used on here, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Georgia (US state) welcome sign.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:I-185 exit 1b.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Modern lcms confessional.jpg. I think all of that user's uploads need to be scrutinized, given that there are many demonstrated bad-faith uploads, with claimed "own work" of photos by several different authors. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I opened a deletion request. All discussion about this particular image should take part there. --Sebari (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Eipotclbmurg:Well done! It says "You can nominate individual media files directly by going to the media description page and clicking on "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox on the left." at Commons:Deletion_requests#Starting_requests. But it's just been done. Maybe someone will do more of the scrutinizing Carl has done and proposes.--Elvey (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Cuban or Polish postage stamps?

Does anyone know if Polish circa 1976 or Cuban circa 1986 stamps are public domain? - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak 03:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Cuban government works, which Cuban stamps probably are, have perpetual copyright (see {{PD-Cuba}}). The situation for Polish stamps seems to be unclear, see en:Copyright law of Poland. Unless someone finds evidence for one way or the other, they may not be uploaded. In contrast, the stamps may be uploaded if their design is public domain for other reasons, for example because it shows an out-of-copyright work or does not meet the threshold of originality. --rimshot^talk 20:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak 02:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

CC image w/ "( c )" : Check

One question please… under the category “Mexico photos from Flickr (check needed)” there is a photograph [16] marked "( c )" “All Rights Reserved” (in Spanish). In Commons, the image shows a CC-BY-SA-2.0 license for use. "Flickr images reviewed by File Upload Bot" The image shows that the copyright is by Angelica Rivera (actress & 1st Lady of Mexico), and the file was transferred from Flickr by a sockpuppeteer (banned by the WMF).

Is the present license shown (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0) for the image correct? or would this image make a good candidate for deletion? Thanks, Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

~~I don't think so. I think so.~~ That Russavia uploaded it makes no difference.--Elvey (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Flickr does allow one to change licenses, but CC licenses cannot be revoked. If it was legitimately marked as CC-BY-SA 2.0 in the past (that is, with proof) it's fair game. Whether we should keep it in light of the uploader's identity is a different question however.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on the prominent watermark, I had concluded the odds that the actual copyright holder ever released it under a CC license were slim - that flickrwashing had occurred. But I'm now convinced otherwise; clearly it is her flickr account, and conclude that the files in Category:Photographs_from_Angélica_Rivera_de_Peña's_Flickr_stream should be kept.--Elvey (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the replies. (Note: Other similar pictures [17] have the bespoke watermark. Others have an “@” instead of the "(c)" [18]. Weird.). Thanks for the attention. Cheers, Tortillovsky (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the automated license review, but that's beside the point. If a Flickr uploader makes statements that clearly contradict the selected licensing terms, such as "all rights reserved" watermarks in the initial upload, we should not rely on a license that the user clearly did not intend to grant. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If the watermark was already there, and then the author decided to change the Flickr license but didn't bother modifying the image, that would still be intended. That can happen too (similar with "all rights reserved" in EXIF), and would be perfectly legitimate. If there is clear text on the Flickr image page which indicates that the license was an unintentional mistake, that is usually when we reconsider. I can't see the source Flickr page though, or to see if the CC license is still there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a rather sizeable if. Unless there's some evidence of the order of events, I'd say that we need to err on the side of caution rather than happy assumptions. But we seem to keep changing our minds. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

By definition, the image watermark had to exist before it was uploaded to Flickr, and thus before they chose the license ;-) If they edit the text on the image description, that is sort of the other order. But every situation is probably a judgement call and might trade off of slightly different facts or impressions. People often want the watermarks to identify authorship, and don't really think about that "All rights reserved" (which is normal-sounding boilerplate) actually conflicts with a CC-BY license they chose -- they may really just be after attribution. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe Flickr offers the possibility of updating existing uploads, but I might be wrong about that. In any case, in my experience, usually when actually asking people who have made contradictory statements of this nature, their intent is more often than not the less free option. Yes, there may be other explanations, but those are rare enough that we shouldn't be relying on our preferred interpretation. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, but I still tend to treat situations differently where they ask for no commercial usage in one place, versus situations where they put a copyright statement in a watermark or EXIF (which may be somewhat automated processing) and then later decide to license it. It may be possible for users to modify uploads but that is relatively rare -- if that watermark is on all the user's photos, I'd assume that is what happens before upload normally. Likewise, if a user did not have confusing statements but changed the license years after the fact, we tend to keep it -- even if perhaps it was originally unintended. I'm not sure there will be much legal difference in those two situations, if the CC-BY license was legitimately on there for years. But when the source page itself has contradictory statements, I usually do err on the side of caution there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not all the pictures by Angélica Rivera de Peña (Category:Photographs from Angélica Rivera de Peña's Flickr stream) have the copyright statement in the watermark, but many do (for instance: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] ) Yes, there is a Flickr account by Angélica Rivera de Peña[28], but as today, it shows containing zer0 photographs, but on September 24, 2013 it was confirmed that the license was correct for upload. Now, some of the pictures under the same category show “Enrique Peña Nieto” in the copyright statement ([29] [30] [31]). These are public figures. Strange. Tortillovsky (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-textlogo and Common law

I'm concerned at this template being used carelessly for images that meet the threshold of originality in Common Law countries. It's quite likely that many users are unaware that Commons doesn't accept files that are copyright in their home country, so users will often duplicate this tag on their uploads without releasing the implications. Is there any chance we can add a notice to it to remind users that the threshold of originality may be much lower in some countries, especially Common Law? PS our definition of "simple geometric shapes or text" will almost always be adequate for the TOO outside of Common Law e.g. the US, but Common Law uses a very different system to assess whether it reaches TOO. Jolly Janner (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The U.S. is a common law country. The lower threshold is primarily those based more off of UK law in particular (though even Canada has moved some from there). And the UK itself is also likely changing due to the EU directives; I just don't think a logo ruling has gotten that far in EU courts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The wording was perhaps wrong. What is your thought on the concept? Jolly Janner (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd support putting in a warning. On enwiki we sometimes get textlogos marked as fair use; when we discuss relicensing them "Is it PD in the country of origin?" is a common issue.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There certainly could be wording that the level is different depending on the country. I'm not sure though that the extremely low thresholds would apply outside the UK, New Zealand, and Australia -- changes in law in other countries may have shifted their boundaries (and the UK itself may have as well, just without any corresponding logo-ish rulings). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Precautionary principle is at the core. We should use caution until we know that any of those countries do allow more complex logos. I'd rather we didn't avoid putting it on the tag, because other countries might allow complex logos and that someone might do the necessary research to prove it. Jolly Janner (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We've had the tag for many years now, so deleting logos based on the fact that we don't have any actual court rulings to rely on would effectively be a policy change. The template is abused no doubt -- it was for mostly text logos, and the shape part is for extremely simple, standard shapes. But even within one country it can get confusing -- the UK ruled the Edge logo copyrightable, but Star Wars stormtrooper helmets are not (whereas the situation in the U.S. is likely reversed). The Edge ruling was also in a case where the judge was trying to throw the book at the defendant as much as possible, because his defense was so ridiculous in the first place, so it may not be the most impartial ruling on the copyrightable aspects -- though it's the best we have. (Many lower-court decisions in the U.S. get overturned by higher courts as well, but there was little chance of an appeal in that case.) Nothing is certain, and the precautionary principle does not mean we delete anything with a theoretical doubt. If we have an actual court decision to go by in a country, that would help, but outside of that is probably just best guess, but that is still better than assuming a UK-level threshold since that is almost never going to be true. Some countries (like Germany used to) have a higher threshold for works normally protected by trademark, so the line can be far higher than the U.S. as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

One also wonders whether all countries do grant copyright to logos. I've seen a few copyright laws which have a list of copyrightable objects rather than a general standard like "originality" or "individual character", and some did not include logos.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Logos would usually be under graphical works or drawings in those type of laws. The concept of "originality" is in the Berne Convention so there is almost always that concept around. It's just that the UK (and a few countries which use its legal precedents) which used "original" in the sense of simply originating from the author and not copied from another source, as opposed to implying some creativity as well. I don't recall cases from countries outside the UK legal framework applying such an interpretation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion around the term of protection in Spain in graph

Hi, I wanted to point your attention to this talk page about a file that is often used on Wikipedia about the term of copyright protection world wide. Where I argue that the current term of protection of Spain is death + 70, however there is a transitional rule that has this at death + 80 for works created before 1988. Please advise on which we should use in this graph. --Martsniez (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a transition rule of life + 80 for works where the author died before 1988 (a specific date in 1987, more precisely). As such, life + 80 is effectively their term -- the difference won't become important until 2058 (for non-corporate works with known authors, at least). Basically, the 1987 law changed to life + 60, then the EU directive shortly thereafter changed again to life + 70, but personal works under those shorter terms can not possibly expire before 2058 so there is not much point to illustrating it as a life + 70 country. On the other hand, that file shows the U.S. as a life + 70 country, but that is only for works published since 1978 -- so that distinction also won't matter until the 2040s either, as most works which can expire in the next several decades would have a term based on publication date only, not life.

So, it's all a matter of what you want to illustrate -- what the terms will eventually settle down to if no further law changes, or what the effective terms are for what works can expire in the foreseeable future, or some kind of mix. As another twist, Mexico is listed as life + 100, but since those were non-retroactive increases from life + 30 in 1982 to the current state, it's really more that works where the author died before 1952 still PD, so Mexico is effectively life + 64 this year, increasing by one each year, and that 1952 line is frozen until the effective term gets to life + 100 and then the line will start moving again. Cote d'Ivoire is similar -- their effective current term is much shorter than life + 99, but it increases every year. Illustrating those differences can be very difficult, but you can argue making Spain life + 80 is probably more realistically accurate for today's situation. However, from 2058 to 2068 they will have both life + 70 and life + 80 works expire each year, and after 2068 it will all be life + 70. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Paint the Night Pictures

Last night, I used Flickr2Commons to upload 142 pictures of the Paint the Night Parade at Disney to Commons and put them in Category:Paint the Night at Disneyland. I would presume that at least a few of these are past the point of de minimis that I tagged them with, and are actually copyright violations. I was hoping that someone (or some people) that are not biased towards these pictures (unlike me, who is biased since I uploaded them), could go through and tag the pictures with Template:Copyvio that are copyright violations. Thanks Elisfkc (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A deletion request has been opened. Input from others would likely be useful; sometimes it is not clear as to where the line falls between de minimis and a derivative work, and in some cases it is not totally clear as to whether the displays involve nonliving models versus costumed individuals. (Does anyone know the identity of this artwork?) --Gazebo (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Tasnim News Agency

This DR is begging for more input since we are talking about a huge amount of files. Natuur12 (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

PD-exempt and logos

FYI, this decision may be a dangerous precedent. If from now on we will allow and keep on commons logos as PD-exempt, some day this consensus will break up and thus all files in this situation may be deleted, leaving unillustrated hundreds of articles in many wikipedias. --XXN, 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Technically, that DR applies to Ukrainian logos only.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I know. There are over 200 notable Ukrainian football clubs with articles in at least 3 wikipedias (en, ru, uk). --XXN, 23:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

So do you disagree with the rationale given at the DR for keeping them? You say, "some day this consensus will break up" but I don't see why we should believe in your claimed ability to predict the future.--Elvey (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You also need a United States copyright tag, see COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. Per the lex loci protectionis and [32], Ukrainian logos seem to be copyrighted in the United States at least. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pre-2003 works from Cambodia?

I'm having trouble determining the copyright status for works published in Cambodia prior to 2003. 2003 is, I believe, when the country's first copyright law was enacted. I'm thinking specifically about music and photos. I'd heard separately that musicians weren't able to earn money from selling their music. From the phrasing, it sounded like a legal matter rather than an unfortunate economic reality. I came across Template:PD-Cambodia, which does not include a provision for pre-2003 works, which makes me think it was written with the knowledge that the 2003 law extends backwards, but guidance would be greatly appreciated. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This story from 2014 is about singer the family of singer Sinn Sisamouth, an extremely popular performers in pre-Khmer Rouge Cambodia. They supplied proof to the government to demonstrate Sisamouth composed a particular list of songs, and those songs were protected. So I guess my question is how we treat creative works that come from countries where it is/was not automatically copyrighted -- where it requires application for copyright that can be granted retroactively? Are songs in the public domain until copyright is granted? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The text of the law says that copyright is automatic (article 38: Every work is automatically protected. The authors or right-holders may deposit their works at the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts.) I would imagine it applied to existing works; article 68 says: The provisions on the penalties of Article 64 and 65 will be applied, 06 (six) months after the entry into force of this Law, on any existing exploitation contradicted to the provisions of this Law. That seems to say that existing exploitations were allowed for 6 months, but then had to cease, and would be subject to normal infringement penalties after that. I have no idea about the realities of copyright there, but the text of the law would seem to assume that the 50pma terms applied to all existing works. So, I don't think there is any real difference for pre-2003 works (other than, of course, acts of exploitation before 2003 were not infringements, but that's not relevant here.) As for other countries which had a registration requirement... we would need some way to validate that fact. If there are no online records, it's hard. PD-US-not_renewed was a hard license to prove before the US renewal volumes were scanned and placed online; not sure we have such avenues for other countries (like Mexico) where it was once required (I think Mexico changed in the 1950s). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. But speaking of Cambodia, I came across Template:PD-CambodiaGov, which seems to be being used as if it's as broad as Template:PD-USGov rather than narrow, as the text within in it suggests, like Template:PD-EdictGov. I'm wondering if it is that broad or if we should rename Template:PD-CambodiaGov (to Template:PD-EdictCambodiaGov or Template:PD-EdictGovCambodia) or a redirect it to Template:PD-EdictGov and perhaps delete some of the files that use it. In some countries, armed forces logos are included in government edicts, making them PD; it's not clear whether that's the case here, but I AGF. I'm thinking just a rename is the appropriate course. I'll do that if there's no further input.--Elvey (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That is typical of many other *Gov tags. If a work does not conform to the tag, it can be nominated for deletion. A redirect to PD-EdictGov would be very wrong. A renaming to something like PD-CambodiaEdictGov might be OK but I'm not sure that would stop any of the abuse. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

{{PD-EdictGov}} describes the copyright status in the United States. It sounds very wrong to redirect a copyright tag for another country to {{PD-EdictGov}}; we'd still need files to be tagged with a copyright tag which describes the copyright status in that country.

One problem with many of these government tags is that it hasn't been clarified exactly what they cover. For example, in 2012, it was discovered that {{PD-GermanGov}} doesn't cover stamps because the tag only covers literary works but not artworks. On the other hand, people argue that {{PD-FinlandGov}} covers stamps which were published before the post changed legal status. Confusingly, the tags {{PD-GermanGov}} and {{PD-FinlandGov}} look very similar, so one would expect them to cover the same things. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Rename: PD-CambodiaEdictGov : Done.--Elvey (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)