File talk:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png

Authorship claims to a modified public domain file

I have some concerns regarding the authorship claims of this file. The image was originally created by YuryKirienko and subsequently modified rather extensively by Kevjonesin who then claimed sole authorship of the resulting work. The original work was in the public domain, which means that Kevjonesin was within his rights to do whatever he wanted with it, but I am not sure I agree that this means he may claim authorship of it if it is not a genuine derivative work (which I am not convinced it is). Inasmuch as a derivative work requires the inclusion of substantial, novel, creative, transformative content, this particular file looks like it has only been changed in technical ways. If this is so, then it looks like Kevjonesin is not entitled to any authorship claim, even as the author of a derivative work, as this (in my interpretation) is not a derivative work, it is only a modified copy of the original work. At the core of this concern is that there seems to be very little on Commons about how to claim or defer authorship of a file— I have been working for the past few days on putting together a document to make this clearer, and may want to offer it up to the community as a bona fide guideline for identifying and claiming authorship on a given file (see User:KDS4444/Authorship to view this). The issue seems to be important because the attribution requirement of many Commons files requires that reusers give credit to the author of the file they reuse, and if the author has not been correctly identified or if authorship has been claimed by someone who does not have this right, then the attribution becomes faulty and the licensing requirements end up being violated. Having said all this, I do not wish to appear as though I am discounting Kevjonesin's work— I have no doubt that his effort was substantial, and I understand that it is difficult to put a great deal of effort into an image and then have to credit the authorship to someone else when re-uploaded. But I believe that this is the correct thing to do in this case. I attempted to correct the authorship of this file to that of the original work, but this was undone by Kev. Following some discussions, another user changed the authorship to note that Yuri was the author of the original work and Kev the author of the derivative. But I am not convinced that this is a genuine derivative work, and if it is not, then it appears that Kev's name should be removed from authorship altogether. On the other hand, as a public domain work, maybe he is entitled to claim sole authorship of it even if he wished to change the licensing terms and publish it under a more restrictive license. I am not interested in having an edit war over authorship, and I have no vested interest in this particular file one way or the other (other than that I am rather interested in scallops and am working on getting the scallop article up to Good Article status on the English Wikipedia right now). I have worked with Kev to try to identify the organs that are annotated in this image, and his work was very helpful for doing that. But I am confused about the principle of authorship and its application, and Kev and I have disagreed on this point. At his request, I am no longer continuing that discussion on his Wikipedia userpage and am moving it here to a more public forum on Commons. KDS4444 (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing these Commons topics back to Commons, KDS4444. I greatly appreciate it. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I am also concerned that people at the Commons graphic's lab (of which Kevjonesin is a member) are routinely taking public domain works, modifying and improving them in ways that are only technical, and then claiming either sole authorship or derivative work authorship of the resulting file, which I don't think is in accordance with Commons policy with regard to licensing. KDS4444 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, personally I've noticed more of an opposite scenario wherein editors are overwriting original photo files with there own digital constructions and not updating filepage info to reflect their changes; in effect crediting/blaming original photographers for their own digital constructs and obfuscating authorship. These overwrites often run contrary to present Commons guidelines which state that significant alterations as described in COM:OVERWRITE should as a matter of policy be uploaded to their own page under a new/modified filename. Regardless, I suppose questions of authorship may remain either way. Hmm, I guess the first question of authorship we need to address may be what is to be the consensus definition of the terms 'author' and 'authorship' for purposes of attribution here on Commons filepages; we likely should have an explicit consensus definition for 'source' as used in filepage info fields as well. Examining how terms like 'copyright' and 'copywrite holder' are to relate to our filepage terms may prove useful as well. Perhaps we might give each term its own subsection heading to better organize defining such.

Finally, I am certain that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of files on Commons that could serve as examples of the confusion I mentioned above. This particular file is just a case in point, and any number of other files might serve. I do not know which files those might be, however. KDS4444 (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If one wishes to use the term 'certain' in such a manner links to specific cited examples may be in order. I think use of the term as presented without qualifiers may risk being seen as conjecture/hyperbole otherwise. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Some opinion from the web to consider: "... If the original work never carried a copyright, you may be able to make relatively minor changes and have a copyrighted work of your own. ... If you translate [a public domain work] or add illustrations, you have created something original - a piece of intellectual property that did not previously exist, and in which you have copyright. ..."[1] Now this still leaves us with the question as to whether for the purposes of Commons filepages we are to equate the terms 'authorship' and 'copyright'? --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Acceptable option?

Before releasing the digital image file "Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png" to the public domain while uploading it here to Commons I was the copyright holder of the changes/differences/alterations made in comparison to YuryKirienko's "Opened scallop shell.jpg" file. It seems sensible and proper to me that authorship of such copyrightable changes should be noted in the publicly displayed filepage info for images here on Commons. It also seems sensible and proper to me that if a significant portion of the work displayed was derived and/or copied from another image the authorship of the source work (or works) may be explicitly displayed in the filepage info on the derived/altered work's page as well – rather than simply relying on a filepage link noting a derivative relationship between the files but relying on the reader to follow the link to discern the broader provenance of the source file. ie. I think using 'Template:author' with the "derivative" parameter to note the author of the derived work on display and then alongside or following such using the same template with the "original" parameter to note the author(s) of the file(s)/image(s) from which the file hosted on the page was derived makes for a fine solution which respectfully takes both the provenance of the new work being displayed and the provenance of the source material used in creating it into account.

My thanks go out to Jkadavoor for bringing the option to my attention through example.

Having the 'author' parameter of Template:Information use the format:

|author= {{Author|derivative|[[User:Example1|Example1]]}}, {{Author|original|[[User:Example2|Example2]]}}

... here on File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png and in general (as precedent for other derived/altered image filepages on Commons) is acceptable to me.

While we're going about it maybe we could embellish information boxes with some pretty graphic imagery to add visual interest and ambience alongside the data; something like a pastoral scene of wild ducks flying over a bicycle shed silhouetted at dusk perhaps?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see it helped. Related: CreativeCommonsWiki:Best practices for attribution, CreativeCommonsWiki:CC0_FAQ#Does_CC0_require_others_who_use_my_work_to_give_me_attribution.3F. Jee 16:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jee. That second link affirms my initial intuition that attribution wasn't a requirement per se (so far as licensing goes; Wikimedia Commons policy seems fluidly in process of being defined at present) as YuryKirienko uploaded his photo to File:Opened scallop shell.jpg under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license; linking the parent image's filepage was more than sufficient as far as the license goes and seemed to me at the time to satisfy custom and courtesy as well (custom-&-courtesy at Wikimedia Commons regarding such now seems to be under active consideration).

Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication CC0 1.0 also states, "When using or citing the work, you should not imply endorsement by the author or the affirmer.", which I feel speaks well to my feelings early on that attributing the file I fashioned and uploaded to File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png solely to YuryKirienko with my changes as compared to his photo still intact – as User:KDS4444 did at one point – was in effect unfairly shifting responsibility to YuryKirienko for my choices to use coarse annotations and exaggerated image characteristics (elements put in place to satisfy a specific narrow use). --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I think following the "custom-&-courtesy at Wikimedia Commons" is good. Otherwise, if we only need to follow the strict minimum requirements, someone may even remove your name from the credits as the work is CC0 licensed. Note that the author has no special rights on the file page per COM:OWN. But "custom-&-courtesy at Wikimedia Commons" prefer to give some preference to the author's wishes as far as it is not doing any harm. Jee 02:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me. My thanks to you both for sharing your thoughts and knowledge (though I am not sure I get the bit about the ducks and the shed....). KDS4444 (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)