Commons talk:Licensing

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

(Redirected from CT:L)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
COM:CQ
CT:L
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 19. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Important discussion pages (index)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg

Contents


[edit] Archived discussions

[edit] By date

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23

(the dates are very approximate because some debates dragged on for months, while others became inactive very shortly)

  • Some principally important discussions are archived in separate pages. There is no point in arguing on the archived pages, because few people will read it. If you wish to dispute an archived page, you should begin a new discussion on this page and provide a link to the archive in question.

(these headers are preserved in case someone has linked to them)

[edit] Against DRM 1.0

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/ADRM

[edit] Review of license templates

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Review of license templates

[edit] U.S. patents

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/U.S. patents

[edit] Ecoport copyleft

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Ecoport copyleft

[edit] Museums Bilder

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Museums Bilder (in German)

[edit] Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed

[edit] Which countries' copyright laws determine copyright status?

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Which copyright law applies?

[edit] Still active discussions

[edit] Template protection after review

There are many country specific copyright templates on commons that need review and should be protected thereafter. Many images on commons use these templates and changing something in the template like accidentally adding a hot cat category would affect all of these and would require mass purging for all images. We should have a review department reviewing each available template and after discussion protecting it. We should discuss the layout of PD templates: Should they include why they are PD in the USA or should this be handled in another template like {{PD-Egypt}} and {{PD-Egypt-1996}}. With the URAA laws the copyright laws of a country doesn't mean that much without an explanation on why they are PD in USA. Something like {{PD-China}} doesn't work for commons because it doesn't specify why it's PD USA. And should there be templates for country specific templates for each case like found in Category:Egypt-related tags? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2009 April 23 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Airforce Academy

I would like to upload the image seen here. It was pulled from [1]. The disclaimer page states:

1. This site is provided as a public service by the USAF Academy Public Affairs. 2. Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.

Is the disclaimer sufficient? Does it being .mil have any bearing on its possible use?Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The image was taken by 2nd Lt. John Ross for the U.S. Air Force Academy. To the best of my knowledge, that makes it a work of the federal government and therefore in the public domain. I assume that's what the disclaimer is intended to mean, but it isn't very clear about it. That disclaimer alone would probably not be enough to claim that an image was in the public domain. Powers (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure the U.S. Air Force Academy is part of the Air Force, and so part of the U.S. Government as well (there are links to Department of Defense policies also applying). And, as noted, the photo was taken by a member of the Air Force itself, so it is {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}, no matter what website it is on, and can be uploaded. The filename style is also indicative of a US military photo; the "-F-" portion indicates it was taken by an Air Force member. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds to me as if they're saying "It's public domain, but we'd appreciate it if you would be kind enough to attribute us": it seems to be a nonbinding request, with which (incidentally) we at Commons must comply because we're required to attribute a source or have the image deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking they were requesting a photo credit in captions, in the traditional form "(Ross/USAFA)" or the like. Powers (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Um, no, lack of attribution is not a reason to delete. Only lack of sources to back up the claimed license. That said, it is exceptionally bad form to not credit an author when known, so obviously a credit like the above should be added. There is 17 U.S.C. 403, which basically invalidates copyright notices on derivative works claimed by another party when the bulk is uncredited U.S. government work, so there is *some* requirement to credit ;-) In this case, it is labeled a USAF photo (not really USAFA) -- but give the full name of the photographer too, obviously. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point; I was remembering that a source is required, and forgetting that we aren't absolutely required to give the name of a photographer for a PD image. Nyttend (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, that the photo was taken by a member of the Air Force is only relevant if it was taken in the course of his official duties. =) Powers (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Which makes me wonder: if a photo is taken by an average member of the US military during a military operation, is that photo PD-USGov? For example, File:1944 NormandyLST.jpg is clearly PD because it was taken by an official photographer, but what if it had been taken by one of the men who are wading ashore in the photo? Obviously they were where they were as part of their official duties, but would it be copyrightable because the average soldier's job description didn't include taking pictures? Nyttend (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It can get fuzzy -- if they were using government-owned cameras, that still would probably be a work-for-hire, as that would have been part of their duties that day (official job description or not). If taken with a personal camera, then they may well own the copyright. But, if such photographs are given to and published on official military websites, it is probably safe to assume those are PD (unless there is a specific notice otherwise). Photos taken by a soldier and self-published on say Flickr, definitely not -- those would be private and copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I was meaning exactly what you suggested in your final sentence. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe "during the course of the person's official duties" means "as part of the person's official duties" rather than "coincidentally during the same time he was on the clock". =) Powers (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] From PD to GFDL

Hi! I noticed that a lot om maps licensed as PD has been replaced by some licensed in GFDL like here [2]. Since GFDL is an "unfree" license I find that it is a shame. What do we do? Do we revert to the PD-version? Make new PD-versions? Do nothing? --MGA73 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please ask the editor who is retagging the maps why he or she is doing so. There may be a good reason for the action taken. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Doh! Silly me... See User_talk:Addicted04#Mexico_maps. Tnx --MGA73 (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems like File:Mexico template.svg is important - the image is wrongly licensed as PD but is a derivative of a GFDL image. --Martin H. (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, mystery solved. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a trend of people uploading higher quality non-PD maps over existing PD maps and changing the licensing. This is a definite no-no. New images with new licensing need to be uploaded as separate images. Otherwise you are effectively deleting old maps without discussion. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, warn editors doing so on their talk pages. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Front page of a magazine

Hi! Someone asked med of a front page of a magazine (http://www.gerstroem.dk/rorvig/images/19%20nordisk-monster.jpg / http://www.webcitation.org/5lDiDXBkd) can be on Commons with {{PD-old}}. The page shows Nordisk Mönster-Tidende (Denmark) from Juni 17, 1906. The illustrations might be made of someone named "J. Chapuis" (could not find further information about this person. Any good suggestions?--MGA73 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to find the artist. Maybe he/she was French? Plates imported from Paris? Possible names are then Jean, Jeanne, Jean(n)ette, Jacques, Jacqueline. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, don't use {{PD-old}}; it's deprecated. The image is unambiguously in the public domain in the United States (so use {{PD-1923}}), but you'll need to determine the copyright status in Denmark as well, and provide an appropriate PD tag if it's in the public domain there as well. If it's not in the public domain in Denmark, you can't upload it until it is. Powers (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Asuming, that the illustrator ("J. Chapuis") was actually an employe at the magazine, would a written permission from the Danish magazine publisher, Aller Media: official website), be sufficient? Or do the illustrator/artist still retain the rights to the pictures him/herself. --Froztbyte (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a question that you should ask the magazine publisher, if you are going to get in touch with them. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics from a Norwegian Commission

I habe some drawings of parts of the Alexander L. Kielland oil-rig which had an accident in 1980.

This drawings are from: The "Alexander L. Kielland"-accident: From a Commission Appointed by Royal Decree of 28th March, 1980 : Report Presented to Ministry of Justice and Police, March 1981 (NOU 1981:11)

As far as I see this drawings should be public domain as stated in {{PD-NorwayGov}}.

Because the drawings were not the best, I have coloured them and added german explanations.

Which license do I have to use? {{PD-NorwayGov}} ? own work ? both or another?

--Wiki-Chris (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the drawings are in the public domain, your coloured version of the drawings are a derivative work of the original drawings that you have copyright over, so I think you should add both the {{PD-NorwayGov}} licence as well as a free licence of your choice (Creative Commons, GFDL and/or a PD licence). I would also suggest that you provide a version that does not have German text so that Wikipedia projects in other languages can also make use of the images.
However, I think you need to consider whether the drawings are in fact covered by {{PD-NorwayGov}}. The English translation of §9 of Act No. 2 of 12 May 1961 relating to Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works, etc., states:
Legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions by public authorities are not protected by this Act. This is also the case with proposals, reports and other statements which concern the public exercise of authority, and which are made by a public authority, a publicly appointed council or committee, or published by the public authorities. ... Literary, scientific or artistic works which have not been produced specially for use in documents specified in the first paragraph, and from which parts are quoted or which are reproduced in a separate appendix, are not covered by this provision. Nor shall the first paragraph apply to poetry, musical compositions or works of art. [Emphasis added.]
Drawings are "works of art", so I wonder if they are excluded from the first part of §9. Or does "works of art" mean "works of fine art", since it appears together with poetry and musical compositions? Perhaps an editor familiar with Norwegian law can comment on this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The drawings are (simple) technical drawings. One shows were the lifestations are on the platform, the other shows the columns and their connections. They are line-drawings, no shadows, no grey-scales. I would not consider them as art. --Wiki-Chris (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded them in the category "petroleum production of norway" --Wiki-Chris (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My point was that it is not clear what "works of art" in §9 of the Norwegian law means – it could either mean any sort of illustration, or only works of fine art. I don't know how accurate the English translation is, but I am inclined to think that perhaps "works of art" is intended to mean works of fine art since it appears together with "poetry" and "musical compositions". In addition, earlier in the same section "artistic works" are referred to, so presumably "artistic works" and "works of art" cannot mean the same thing. However, it would be good if someone familiar with Norwegian law could comment on this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. One thing ist, that this technical drawings were specially made for the report. So they should be pd if they are not fine art. The other thing why I suppose them to be pd is, that they are not art in the way of a painting or something you would see in a gallery. They are illustrations to understand the text of the report (therefore they have additional descripitons, what I can't bring in context with fine art). I don't know if there are qualified norwegian useres here and if somebody could confirm my assumption or falsify it, that would be great. --89.245.7.34 10:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Everything depends on what works of art in §9 of the Norwegian law means. You may want to leave messages on the talk pages of the English Wikipedia's WikiProject Norway or the Norwegian Wikipedia (bokmål/nynorsk) to see if there are any editors who can help answer our question. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
And yet the previous sentence basically says that "artistic works" created specifically for such reports are OK. So whatever the difference between an "artistic work" and "work of art" is, may matter :-) I have no real idea, but a reasonable guess would be something like a full painting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

← As a native Norwegian speaker, my understanding of the word kunstverk, used in the Norwegian version of the law and translated as works of art in the text above, does not include technical drawings. To me, it strongly implies something belonging in an art gallery or museum. I am more worried about whether § 9 applies in the first place, but that is something I have little knowledge about. Ters (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that §9 isn't applicable? The English translation suggests that it does, and it is set out on the template description page of {{PD-NorwayGov}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that it isn't applicable. It is just that I feel less sure about that part than what is meant by kunstverk/works of art. You seem sure about what I am not sure about, while I feel sure about what you are uncertain about. There should be other Norwegians around that can give you a second opinion if you want, but you might need to visit them at home (on the Norwegian Wikipedias). I have just given a common sense interpretation of a word, which is how just about everyone would read that part of the law. Ters (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you meant that based on the Norwegian text the whole of §9 was not applicable to this situation. Since you speak Norwegian, do you think you might help us by posting a message on an appropriate talk page of the Norwegian Wikipedias (bokmål/nynorsk) to see if an editor who is knowledgeable about Norwegian law is able to contribute to this discussion? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an expert either, but if we're talking about drawings like File:ALK columns fractures german.png they are IMO safely covered by PD-NorwayGov. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
They are not necessarilly safe. The term used in Norwegian is "myndighetsutøvelse" ("administration of authority"), and also copyrighted work will not be free even if they are used in a document said to be part of such "myndighetsutøvelse". The interesting thing is wetter the drawing was created as part of such "myndighetsutøvelse". 87.248.8.192 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, the drawings are stated to be from "Norsk offentlig utredning 1981:11", thus covered by "Det samme gjelder forslag, utredninger og andre uttalelser som gjelder offentlig myndighetsutøvelse, og er avgitt av offentlig myndighet, offentlig oppnevnt råd eller utvalg, eller utgitt av det offentlige." Unless the NOU-document states gives a different source for these drawings it is safe to assume they were created as part of this. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnamese stamps

I recently tagged File:Van troi execution NLF Stamp 10.15.1965.jpg, a scan of a vietnamese stamp issued by the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (Vietcong) in 1965, as having no permission. The question here is, if this stamp is already in the public domain today. User:Neozoon already posted a question on Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain, but that discussion page is only rarely visited, so I doubt we will get an answer there in time.

Neither Commons:Licensing nor Commons:Stamps/Public domain say anything about Vietnamese copyright laws, but maybe someone here can help solve this problem. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

English translations of some Vietnamese copyright laws are available on the World Intellectual Property Organization website at:
There is another law, Part Six of the Civil Code of 14 June 2005, that may be relevant but is not yet available in electronic format: see http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?id=4125.
To bring this question to the attention of editors knowledgeable about Vietnamese copyright law, you may wish to leave messages on the talk pages of the English Wikipedia's WikiProject Vietnam and the Vietnamese Wikipedia. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That was also during the Vietnam War, supposedly produced in an area controlled by a separate government and probably having completely separate laws at the time. Could get interesting :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yikes, you're right. No idea if the present copyright laws of Vietnam applied in 1965 (probably not). What's the position if we are unable to establish the copyright status of images? I suppose they have to be removed from the Commons? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I think usually the new state becomes successor in law to the previous state; all the property of South Vietnam would be property of Vietnam and all South Vietnamese copyrights would be Vietnamese copyrights. So the question is is the stamp PD under current Vietnamese law?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's right to make such a big assumption. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Only if newer copyright laws are specifically retroactive... Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Non self-made screenshots of free software

You remember when I asked if there still may be a form of neighbouring rights applying even to screenshots of free software? The whole "sure the software may be free but the author may still have rights to the presentation and display of the content" idea? This interesting RFD may set a potential precedent based off how it plays out. You might wanna take a look at it. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If the screenshot is derived work of the program and the program license is of the copyleft type, then the screenshot cannot be distributed by another license (except with the permission of the authors). What the RFD should be about is whether the screenshot is a derived work in the sense of the license and copyright law. The output of the program (such as the document produced by a word processor) is explicitly not covered by GPL, but what about the user interface?
If the GPL exclusion clause does not apply to the user interface, then the screenshot must be put under GPL, unless you are free to publish screen shots from similar proprietary programs (which Commons thinks you cannot).
Of course it is possible that the screenshot should be put, but hasn't been put, under the GPL. Then neither the one who made the screenshot nor anybody else may distribute it (other than if the making of the screenshot is regarded as trivial and therefore uncopyrightable).
(If I understand Nard the Bard correctly, the screenshots are put under GPL at the source, which is missing on the pages discussed.)
--LPfi (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The relevant clause is "output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)."
The GPL also includes a clause saying that by distributing a derived work you indicate acceptance of the license. I do not know whether the statement holds in court.
--LPfi (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Couldn't decide on license

Yes check.svg ResolvedRedrose64 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have uploaded File:The Railway Magazine October 1901 cover 688.jpg but could not decide which license was best. I put {{PD-old}} in the permission because I could not find the relevant row in the list of licenses. Is there enough information on the file's description page? I had to type it all in again because having clicked on Licensing to decide which was suitable (no real help there), on return from that page the form was blanked, apart from the filename. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You would need {{PD-UK-unknown}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's shown in Commons:Copyright tags but rather buried. Right then, I've changed the license tag. Should {{PD-old}} be (a) left in the permission; (b) moved to the Licensing section; (c) removed altogether? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Both are needed, because PD-UK-unknown only established PD in the UK, not in the US, and we need both. Conventionally, PD tags are kept right next to each other, in the Licensing section, so do that. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
✓ moved, thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Too trivial for copyright?

File:NL-Army-OF1b.gif and several images like it in Category:Military rank insignia of the Army of the Netherlands were tagged today for deletion as being without sources. These images all consist of one or more stars on a black background — are these too trivial for copyright, as it seems to me? Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Those do look too trivial for copyright, yes. -Nard the Bard 00:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright of File:Francis-Gary-Powers trial cia.jpg

(First off, I hope I've got the right place to ask this.) I noticed that File:Francis-Gary-Powers trial cia.jpg is tagged as being a work of the US government and therefore PD. This seems odd to me, as it is a photo of a trial in Moscow in 1960, and although it's possible that it was taken by a US diplomat (I'd assume they were there, given he was a US pilot on trial for spying), surely it is at least as likely that it was taken by someone else, e.g. a Soviet official or a press photographer. -- AJR | Talk 16:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the apparently inconclusive discussion at "Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Dec#Image:Francis-Gary-Powers trial cia.jpg", the source of the image is the website of the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence. I note that according to the site policies page of the website:
Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the Central Intelligence Agency Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Central Intelligence Agency's permission. We request only that the Central Intelligence Agency be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or Central Intelligence Agency, as appropriate.
If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or any other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source.
In this case, the photograph in question is from an article reproduced on the website by Alexander Orlov called "The U-2 Program: A Russian Officer Remembers: A "Hot" Front in the Cold War". At the bottom of the page is the following passage: "This article contains copyrighted material. Further dissemination is prohibited without permission of the author and the Center for the Study of Intelligence." I therefore think that the photograph is not in the public domain and has to be removed from the Commons unless both Orlov and the CIA agree to license it freely. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've listed the image for deletion. Please discuss the matter at "Commons:Deletion requests/2009/11/30#File:Francis-Gary-Powers trial cia.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] License Ava Gardner

Hi, I would like to talk about the license of this photograph File:Ava Gardner.jpg. The web of Internet Archive says it is in the Public Domain. However, in this link [3], you can read: the original copyright holders retain their copyrights. So, my question is: It is in the Public Domain or not? It seems a photograph of the film Mayerling.--Aylaross (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

IIRC Ourmedia is a site which allows anyone to upload photos. Its doubtful that the person who uploaded this image is the copyright holder. Without the original source information, it would be difficult to determine the current copyright status; guessing based on when Ava Gardner was active, I'd say its unlikely that this image is in the public domain. Shell babelfish 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Internet Archive is hosted in Canada which has diffferent (and somewhat more lenient) copyright laws from many other countries. So unless an image was originally taken in Canada, it may not qualify for upload to Commons. To be specific, per Commons:Licensing#Canada "All photographs taken before 1 January, 1949 are in the public domain." That only applies to Canada though. WMF servers are located in the United States and Commons policy is to honor the copyright law of the country of origin. So in practical terms this often means that images which were taken during the second quarter of the twentieth century are eligible for Internet Archive hosting but not for WMF sites. Here's hoping that answers your question. Durova (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure the Internet Archive is hosted in the U.S. (sounds like its servers may now be somewhat mobile; see here). As for the image though, I think we need a better PD reference than the above. If it is indeed from the film Mayerling, it could not be PD due to non-renewal of the copyright, since the film is from 1968. It would have to be shown that it was published without a copyright notice -- seems pretty dubious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Greek banknotes

The copyright of Greek banknotes (see Category:Banknotes of Greece) is not owned by the Greek Government. Only regular circulation coins of a value up to 1000 drachmae were issued (minted) by the Bank of Greece on behalf of the Government. Between 1928 and 2002 the banknotes were designed, issued and owned by the Bank of Greece, which is technically a Corporation (an Anonymous Company, like the french S.A. or the german AG). In addition the designers of many banknotes are known, so a life+70 years copyright should apply. I believe that the following images are tagged incorectly:

Sv1xv (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also the following three photos of old bills fall in this category:

Sv1xv (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Greek copyright law, so just a few thoughts off the top of my head. First, is the fact that the designers are known relevant? Presumably they were hired by the Bank of Greece to produce the banknote designs on the Bank's behalf, so it seems unlikely to me that the Bank would have allowed the designers to retain copyright over the designs rather than having it reside with them. Secondly, if you are sure that the images were not uploaded under proper free licences, you can tag them for speedy deletion with {{copyvio}}. However, if you are uncertain whether the licences are valid or not, you can list the images at "Commons:Deletion requests" for further discussion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I have made some informal enquiries and discovered that the designers were employees of the bank. However in the greek law the duration of protection does not change if it is work for hire, as is the case in the USA. The important thing is that these are not anonymous (or, more accurately, pseudonymous) works, so they don't become PD 70 years after the date of issue. As for marking the images with {{copyvio}} or filing deletion requests, I believe these actions are not the proper method for discussing copyright issues. We already have more than enough copyright paranoia on Commons. Sv1xv (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want to do. If you are certain that the images are incorrectly licensed and that they are still subject to copyright, then there are no two ways about it – they must be tagged with {{copyvio}} and speedily deleted because they cannot remain in the Commons. Or are you unsure whether the designers of the banknotes are still alive or not, and asking for help in establishing their identities? If the latter, you may want to also leave messages on the talk pages of WikiProject Greece and the Greek Wikipedia and ask them to participate in the discussion here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Compensation for releasing an image

Apologies for not posting this to the correct page (none seem to be). My question is whether anyone has been in a situation where the photographer of an image of a living person has agreed to release their image under a free license in return for a one-time monetary compensation, and in that case what you think a reasonable sum would be. I am sure it depends on many factors, but assume that the photo is a studio portrait of reasonable quality. Thanks in advance. Decltype (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't encountered such a situation. It really depends on whether you are willing to pay the sum requested, I guess. If the photograph is an absolutely amazing one and you feel you must have it to use in an article you are working on, and see the payment as a donation to Wikipedia to improve its content, then by all means go ahead. But make sure that the photographer realizes that he or she is going to license it under a free licence (i.e., other people will be able to make further use of the image by redistributing it, reusing it for both commercial and non-commercial purposes, and making modifications to it), and forward the e-mail correspondence on the matter to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so that it can be verified through the OTRS. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Yes, I have informed the photographer that they must agree to irrevocably release their photo under the conditions of a suitable free license, and that I would be willing to offer a monetary compensation in return. I am familiar with OTRS and requesting permission, but I still appreciate you taking the time to explain. Regards, Decltype (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are templates like Template:PD-AR-Photo and simmilar actualy appropriate for Commons?

This page states that Commons only accept images that are free licensed or public domain in both the US and the source country. The Argentine license tag simply states that the photos are public domain in Argentina because copyright on photos there expire 25 years after publication creation. However as I understand it the United States does not implement the rule of the shorter term, so in the US those photos will still be copyrighted for the full term under US law which is considerably longer (life of author + 70 years in most cases). Doesn't mean that a lot of the photos using this (and similar national PD tags) should in fact not have been uploaded here, or have I missed something? --Sherool (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Very few relevant works have a 70 p.m.a. term in the U.S. (only works first published since 1978) -- most would use older U.S. copyright terms. For foreign works, the U.S. copyright status usually depends very highly on if a work was copyrighted in the country of origin on the URAA date -- if it was not (per terms like PD-AR-Photo), then there is no copyright in the U.S. either (unless the foreign work was published in compliance with all the old formalities, such as with a copyright notice, properly renewed with the U.S. copyright office, etc. -- exceedingly rare.) At any rate, such tags are used to document the copyright status in the country of origin; sometimes a U.S. tag is required as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As Clindberg says, Argentine photos that were out of copyright in Argentina in 1996 are out of copyright in the US. However, there's a widespread opinion that, for whatever reason, we should act like rule of the shorter term actually applied in the US, which currently prevents the deletion of such works that are out of copyright in their home country but not in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As much as I hate to say "let's use an unfree work unless we get a takedown notice" I'd say that's the current Commons consensus on this matter. Works that are PD in the source country are probably not undergoing current commercial exploitation in the US. If they are however, we should be quick to respond to any complaint on the matter. -Nard the Bard 04:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Since when has "current commercial exploitation" been a criteria for determining if an image is PD/free or not? All I'm saying is that we should be consistent, copyright issues are confusing enough as they are, we should not operate with two sets of rules, one "official written down" and one "what we actually do", at least not when it comes to copyright and licensing. Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law seem quite clear, but are you saying the consensus on the project is actually the opposite? According to the note on Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. the cause of action have yet to be decided. Has there actually been an RFC or similar on this subject or are we just going by the "people keep uploading such images so there is a de-facto consensus to allow them" kind of deal? --Sherool (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is any consensus. I would consider such images to be highly discouraged, but there has been a reluctance to delete ones already uploaded. Such images should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} in case we ever reach a consensus (there is a challenge to the URAA in the court system, and a small portion of it was declared unconstitutional in the latest ruling, so that has affected opinions too). When you get down to it, there are many works which are PD in most countries but still copyrighted in some -- do you consider those "free"? In some cases, works are PD in virtually every country in the world *except* for the United States. Do you consider those "free"? We will host works which are PD in the U.S. but virtually nowhere else, are those "free"? That is partly why we need as many details on the authorship, etc. of all works, because re-usage must be judged differently in different countries; even though we may host works here under our rules, they may not be PD in various other countries. Copyright is complicated, and usually there is no hiding from it. PD in "both the US and the source country" is the compromise the community chose, but technically it is something the community could change (unless we get an edict from the Foundation... which we sort of did, but they also said please don't go hunting down and deleting existing images because of it), and there have been a few cases where the result of following that rule felt pretty ridiculous. It was discussed a few times without much resolution that I can remember. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What about images that where not restored by URAA, that is images who's copyright have lapsed after the restoration date (in other words their copyright have at no point been considered expired under US law)? I think at least the license templates themselves should contain a similar notice rater than relying on someone adding a second tag. --Sherool (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Um... those would precisely be the works which were restored by the URAA. If works were PD in their country of origin on the URAA date, the U.S. copyright was *not* restored; if they were still copyrighted in their country of origin then their U.S. copyright was restored, and thereafter they get whatever copyright status it would have had in the U.S. had it been properly registered and renewed. Subsequent changes in the country of origin (falling out of copyright, or law changes which restore copyright there) have no effect in the U.S. Those works, if published before 1923, are still PD in the U.S.; if published between 1923 and 1977 inclusive they are copyrighted 95 years from publication, and if created and published since 1978 they will have a 70 pma term (if created by an individual). U.S. copyrights for old works are currently frozen, increasing from 75 to 95 years from publication; that is why the 1923 dividing line is frozen right now and does not increase every year, so there are no copyrights lapsing in the U.S. right now. The odds that foreign works which were not restored by the URAA still having a valid U.S. copyright is exceptionally low; they would have had to comply with copyright notices, renewal registrations with the U.S. copyright notice and the timings thereof, the manufacturing clause, the part which requires two copies be sent to the U.S. Library of Congress to be a valid registration, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I would say merely rare, not exceptionally low. British publishers often took care to follow the manufacturing clause and the other details. For non-English works, the rules were less arduous; no manufacturing clause, for one. Kafka was properly filed and renewed. A quick search reveals 112 renewed works "traduit" whether it be "de l'allemand", "de l'anglais", or whatever, in the renewal files, so foreign publishers did at times follow the renewal rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I probably should have qualified that a bit by making clear that I was referring to media typically uploaded here -- usually photographs, graphics, etc. Many foreign books were probably registered correctly and followed all the rules; publishing companies were likely well aware of those ramifications and made sure to follow them. I am however guessing that there are exceptionally few (for example) individual photographs which had the same treatment. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
One can also philosophize on the question whether FOP-images of sculptures and other art is really free in the US. Deleting such images would obviously destroy commons. This would become server for US images, non-english wikipedias would return to local uploading. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and we also can draw the line so that we don't get into those (more theoretical) situations, and respect U.S. copyright law (where the servers are). There have most certainly been court cases over URAA-restored works which have since lapsed in their country of origin, and those copyrights were upheld. As a practical matter, any such work which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office needs to be deleted immediately -- the legal consequences for the Foundation go up dramatically once that happens. Without such registration, the scope of any problems is actually pretty low, which is probably the only reason it is even possible to consider. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the structure of Commons is pretty bizarre if deleting such images would destroy it; I fail to see how it's obvious at all. Especially as France, Italy and several countries have as restrictive or more restrictive FOP laws. In any case, nobody seems interested in arguing how US courts would interpret foreign FOP law; the discussion at hand is the violation of US law as has been clearly interpreted by the courts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PD-USGov vs. Flickr

Hi. I been uploading images from the Embassy of the US in my country (Uruguay) for some time using a suitable template (i think). Two month ago the personnel of the Embassy began uploading the images of their site (http://uruguay.usembassy.gov/) to flickr instead of their server (maybe for issues of images sizes, who knows). The thing is that the licence they use in their photos in flickr is CC BY-NC-ND (absolutely incompatible with the license they should be releasing their photos). I think the situation its simple (they are mistaken) but i wanted to throw it here before uploading more images. Thank you.--Zeroth (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Flickr images tagged with CC-BY-NC-ND cannot be uploaded to the Commons. You may want to ask the Uruguayan embassy to retag them CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. But if the images are works of the US Federal Government, I think you can use them under the {{PD-USGov}} licence even if they have been uploaded to Flickr under a more restrictive licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As long as the flickr account http://www.flickr.com/people/usembassy_montevideo/ assures that "These photographs are works of the United States Government, excluded from copyright law and considered to be in the public domain [...]" you can surely upload them with {{PD-USGov-DOS}}. You may write some information in the permission field, like that phrase I just wrote with a link to the profile. However, this statement helps us to decide here, without this statement I would have thought that it is better to ask, but here we can use the images without doubt. The profile also says "They are being made available for [...] educational use, and/or for personal use by the subject(s) of the photographs", well thats not valid restrictions, the images are free of copyright and everyone can use them. --Martin H. (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.--Zeroth (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, if you are going to download the images from Flickr instead of obtaining them from some other source, you should seriously consider getting in touch with the Flickr account holder and explain why the images should be tagged using CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. After all, if US Federal Government materials are in the public domain, the embassy in Uruguay should not be confusing the matter by putting a more limited licence on its images. If you upload the images as they are currently licensed, they will fail the licence check carried out the Flickr review bot, and then you may need to spend time explaining to other editors why the images are OK despite this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The White House Flickr stream has gotten Flickr to make a "United States Government Work" tag just for them; the embassy may well want to ask Flickr about being able to use that tag for their works as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CaptainRobertWilson.jpg

I've uploaded file File:CaptainRobertWilson.jpg which was sourced from here. I'm not entirely sure that I've put the proper license in place. The image is in the public domain in Canada as noted in the link. Have I placed the proper license template or is another more appropriate? -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing"