Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Village pump(Redirected from Commons:CQ)
Jump to: navigation, search


  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓
Shortcut: COM:VPC· COM:VPCOPY
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. For old discussions, see the Archive section below. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days may be archived.

Please note
  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Important discussion pages (index)
Gnome User Speech.svg


Village Pump/Copyright Archives
+ J F M A M J J A S O N D
2011 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04
 

Propose to update CC license tags to comply with the new wordings in CC deeds[edit]

I'm proposing this matter here per the advice of ChrisiPK at AN.

As we all know, CC had updated all of their license deeds after the release of CC 4.0 licenses. It is to educate the licensees (and licensors too) about the legal terms by highlighting them more promptly. And, we can see some terms like "remix", "work", "file" are not perfectly conveying the copyright terms. So CC changed them to "adapt", "material" to satisfy all types of works, means and medium we are using.

There is also a warning about the third party rights (like publicity, privacy and moral rights) that may limit the reuse. Our current practice is to add specific tags on individual files, which is time consuming and not perfect as we can't check all files.

Ref:

Marking your work with a CC license "Example: Image"
Choose a license
Best practices for attribution
Best Practices for Creative Commons attributions
Creative Commons Attribution For Photos

So I propose to update the layout templates:

Existing Proposed
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons <license name with link to deed> license. "Foo" <title of the work with link to URI> by Real name (www.example.com) <attribution parameter provided in author field with a link to user page> is licensed under a <license name with link to deed> license.
You are free: You are free to:
to share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
to remix – to adapt the work Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following conditions: Under the following terms:
attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license (link to legal code) before using the licensed material.

Current tag (CC BY lacks the ShareAlike clause):

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Attribution: Real name (www.example.com)
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
  • share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Option 1 Proposed tag (CC BY lacks the ShareAlike clause):

Cc primary srr.gif
By large.png Sa large.png
"Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
You are free to:
  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
  • No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
  • This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material.



Option 2 Proposed tag including all terms in the deed as suggested below (CC BY lacks the ShareAlike clause):

Cc primary srr.gif
By large.png Sa large.png
"Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
You are free to:
  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
  • You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
  • No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
  • This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material.


Option 3 Proposed tag without a "title" (CC BY lacks the ShareAlike clause):

Cc primary srr.gif
By large.png Sa large.png
This work by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
You are free to:
  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
  • You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
  • No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
  • This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material.

Option 4 Proposed tag (CC BY lacks the ShareAlike clause):

Cc primary srr.gif
By large.png Sa large.png
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
Attribution: Real name (www.example.com)
You are free to:
  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Option 5 Proposed tag (CC BY lacks the ShareAlike icon):

Cc primary srr.gif
By large.png Sa large.png
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
Attribution: Real name (www.example.com)

Option 6 Proposed tag without a "title" (CC BY lacks the ShareAlike clause):

Cc primary srr.gif
By large.png Sa large.png
This media by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
You are free to:
  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Votes[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Option 4 or 3. Jee 07:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Option 6 considering new suggestions. The layout, design, colours, icons, etc. can be changed/improved. I'm only concerned about the wordings. Jee 02:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support option 4 or 2. --Graphium 15:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support option 3 and 4.    FDMS  4    14:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Time2wait.svg On hold
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please wait as we are waiting for the WMF input (see below). Jee 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC) See the WMF input below. Jee 07:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Welcome to any suggestions. Jee 07:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The layout of this proposal is confusing, it took me a few minutes to work out that this was a "from existing text" to "new text" proposal with them side by side. Adding to the confusion is that this appears to be trying to do all variations of Commons allowed CC licences in one go. I suggest the "from" and "to" texts are side by side in a wiki table and that each licence, or each licence component in CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA are made clear rather than bundling. To go the extra mile, I suggest creating the new draft licences in a sandbox and linking to them here, so that the end result can be seen as it will appear on an image page. -- (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Those license tags are so complicated; so difficult to understand for an ordinary volunteer. Probably Multichill can help. All tags of version 1.0 to 4.0 except CC 0 use that same components. CC BY doesn't use the "ShareAlike" part. I didn't look on NC as it is out of my interest. Will try to improve the presentation. Jee 08:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@: Hope ✓ Done. Jee 09:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the bolding of the links in the explanations …    FDMS  4    18:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Bolding can be avoided if links can be highlighted by a separate color or any other means. Jee 02:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Links are generally highlighted in blue …    FDMS  4    08:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I would clearly prefer to use a more grammatically correct presentation (like Wikimedia Commons does currently) than a BuzzImportantWordInCamelCase (like ShareAlike) terminology (like the new proposal offer to uniformize with Creative Commons text). --Dereckson (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Use of separate words than in the legal code will affect the legal validity in case of disputes. Jee 02:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that the links in the icons on the current tags are not working. It seems link= only works if full URI is provided. Jee 03:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a useful improvement and brings our CC4 template in line with their deed.

  • I'm not clear how the ""Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) " bit works. Could someone give examples for Commons-sourced files and perhaps indicate if e.g., Flickr-sourced files would be done differently.
  • I like how "This file is licenced" has been dropped since CC have admitted they don't consider any of their licences to be file-based [something to consider changing in earlier templates too, but that's for another day].
  • I don't think the "You are free to" or "Under the following terms" should be in bold, nor the links.
  • I think "Notices" should better be titled "Caveats", since that's what they are.
  • The "No warranties are given" sentence should best link to the Commons:General disclaimer.
  • The CC4 deed also has "for any purpose, even commercially." and "The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms". These are both important points and I don't see why we should miss them out.
  • I don't see why our "deed", if that is what this is, needs to link to CC's deed in the word "deed". It is just confusing to read "This dead" which contains a link to something else. Since ours is nearly the same, we've made theirs redundant and so re-users would be best jumping straight to the full licence text.

-- Colin (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • @Colin: Thanks for the review.
  • 1. "Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
I had spend a lot of time to understand the "marking" and "attributing" procedure. "A good rule of thumb is to use the acronym TASL, which stands for Title, Author, Source, License." It covers all the necessary information for attributing a licensed material (work). I understand your question as "original source" of third party uploads are different. In that case we may consider to add the source parameter too as in the Media Viewer. Then it will look like "Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) (Own work/external source) is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
Note that we try to provide attribution parameters through various ways (Creditline, attribution= in license tag, etc. But I noticed that external sites like eol.org only look into the author= field in Commons.)
  • 2. This update will affect all CC tags except CC 0 as this edit request is on Template:CC-Layout.
  • 3 Done.
  • 4 Considerable if enough consensus (I'm not a native English speaker).
  • 5 Done.
  • 6 Considerable if enough consensus
  • 7 Done. Jee 09:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
On point 1, I still don't understand and need an example. Since this is a generated template, where would one get "Real name" or "www.example.com" from. Please can you give a few examples from real Commons images. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Colin: Sure; you can see here how I provide attribution to the POTY winners.
1. Real name is given.
2. Only user name given.
4. Flickr user name, Flickr source, and name of adapter provided.
5 & 8. Real name with website link provided.
The template only need to look into author (and source for not {{own}} if needed). Jee 14:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support the text of {{Cc-by-4.0}} should match https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en. I did not check word by word the match of the proposed text with creativecommons.org version but it should be close. The same goes with all the translations already done by CC. One concern I have is with "Foo": most photographs do not have titles and we should not expect people to title them, but should allow someone to add title if desired. I would also like to keep the suggested attribution part as a separate field. Incorporating it into sentence will cause trouble as people can put all kind of nonsense there making the sentence incomprehensible. Current approach isolates injected text so it is less of an issue. We should probably update Commons:Credit line. --Jarekt (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Thanks.
"Foo" is "file name without extensions" as followed in Media Viewer. If it is not practical, we can satisfy with "This Licensed Material".
"Incorporating it into sentence" is the "preferred" way suggested by CC in Best practices for attribution.
The second option is "Attribution: Photo by Example / CC BY-SA" as a second line as in current template. But the current problem is we only (most people) provide attribution as "author name" only. It gives the re user a false idea that only author name is required as attribution. In fact, attribution requires Title (optional), Author, Source, License. Jee 17:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the "attribution" statement might be misleading as it often only mentions author. Maybe we should update and expand Commons:Credit line and link to it (we might want to also rename it to something like Commons:License attribution). I do not think filename and title are equivalent: our filenames can be up to 240 bytes long and the only requirement are that they are unique. Many were chosen not by authors but by the uploaders, for example in case of flickr images (like all files here) --Jarekt (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand; and wonder how Media viewer handle this: <p><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Areca_catechu_nuts_at_Kadavoor.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Areca_catechu_nuts_at_Kadavoor.jpg"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Areca_catechu_nuts_at_Kadavoor.jpg" alt="Areca catechu nuts at Kadavoor.jpg" height="480" width="360"></a><br>"<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Areca_catechu_nuts_at_Kadavoor.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Areca_catechu_nuts_at_Kadavoor.jpg">Areca catechu nuts at Kadavoor</a>" by <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jkadavoor" title="User:Jkadavoor">Jeevan Jose, Kerala, India</a> - <span class="int-own-work">Own work</span>. Licensed under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0" title="Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0">CC BY-SA 4.0</a> via <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/">Wikimedia Commons</a>.</p> displays "Areca catechu nuts at Kadavoor" by Jeevan Jose, Kerala, India - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Note that we need "title" or a word like "Photo" or "Media" at least to link it to the source. Further not that, according to CC this attribution may not be immediate visibility under the use. It can be in page footer, tail page of a book, or in a "credit page" especially created for that purpose alone in a website. In such cases, a meaningful tittle explains the media is the only way to associate them together. Jee 02:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I got the ping. I still had this somewhere on my list. My main concern is that it's going to become some massive bulky template. The first prototype doesn't look promising at all. We should focus on getting a slick small template, not trying to teach copyright in a template. I'm inviting some of the WMF legal and design people to pitch in. Multichill (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. But my opposing arguments are:
If we use a small template just covering the first line, people use their own templates to convey the remaining parts.
We our self applying {{Personality}}, {{Trademarked}}, {{Consent}}, etc. in selected works with makes the page more bulky than this. Further, that practice is not perfect as we can't filter all such files easily from our collection.
I think educating people is more important than limiting the page size; if it leads to misuse, thus makes damage to our potential contributors.
I agree with you that sound review by a legal team is necessary before applying the change. I think Media Viewer team can help us. Pinging Keegan (WMF). Jee 02:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Jee. I'll have to read up on this and see how I can help pass it along, and to which part of the WMF, if appropriate. Pesky note: it's the Multimedia team ;) Keegan (WMF) (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Keegan (WMF). I know you're not from the legal but hope you get enough support from them. And it will be nice if the attribution requirement is provided in the same way in the "file page" and "Media Viewer". Otherwise it will add another confusion and annoying too. :)
What is your (team) opinion about "title" = "file name without extension"? It will be nice if we can add an extra field title= in {{information}}. But we already have so many files. So I think adding it now is difficult? Jee 09:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor:: The Multimedia team opinion is that adding these fields isn't difficult, you can use a bot or a Lua module to take care of it. In the long run, looking at Wikidata integration, it might even be beneficial. Structured data=good data. So yeah, go for it if the community agrees. No problem from this end. As for the legal aspect, I've passed that along for someone else to look at since it's outside my purview. HTH. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Keegan (WMF); this is interesting. I think adding such a field to {{Information}} will be a great improvement. May be a bot can set the default value for all existing files as "file name without extension" so that authors can change it later if they wish so. @Jarekt:, Multichill, Jean-Frédéric... what do you think? ({{Specimen}}, etc. based on Photograph template have already has a field "title"; so it can be used.) Jee 02:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Many Artworks and artistic photographs have official titles, snapshots do not. As an uploader of a lot of photographs I think it would be pointless to title them and using a filename sounds like even worse idea: filenames were not designed to be titles they are only supposed to be unique. Welived for so long without titles for our photos why do we need them now? If I want a title to be mentioned in my cc license I will add it to the attribution string, since that what it was designed to do. Also you can always use {{Artwork}} or {{Photograph}} template if you need that field. But even there people are encouraged to use {{Title}} template or templates like Category:Multilingual tags: Title, which can be hard to fit in an attribution field. --Jarekt (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Jarekt: But how then people can specify source in the attribution? There is no need of a word if the image is hyper linked in a website or attribution is mentioned near the use. But it is not applicable for all cases. See, an e-book is published with 100 photos from Commons and attribution is provided altogether in the last page. Then it is better if we can "Common Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus by Kadavoor" by Jeevan Jose...., "Acmella ciliata by Kadavoor" by Jeevan Jose...., etc than "Photo" by Jeevan Jose...., "Photo" by Jeevan Jose...., etc. It will be far better if we can mention better titles than "file names". ("Papilio demoleus at Kadavoor" is better).
If it is a paperback book, title is more meaningful. See "Common Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus by Kadavoor" (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_Lime_Butterfly_Papilio_demoleus_by_Kadavoor.JPG) by Jeevan Jose...., "Acmella ciliata by Kadavoor" (Source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Acmella_ciliata_by_Kadavoor.jpg) by Jeevan Jose.... Jee 03:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
But not everybody names their files that way. I always try to concatenate few fields: a place or source, subject or species, and some number to make it unique. Others pick names differently like for example File:I got my Honda Accord 1990 4 door 4 cylinder power windows power door lock run good engine and transmission good 120,000 miles do you want to contact me text me or call me 8608406395- 2014-05-28 20-07.jpg --Jarekt (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Jarekt, I understand; and some file names by bots are also very lengthy. So what about picking title from {{credit line}} if provided, else from {{Title}} if provided, else use file name without extension as a compromise? (BTW, that example is com:ADVERT and need to be renamed. :)) Jee 14:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with picking titles from license attribution string, {{credit line}} or {{Title}}, but if those are not provided than I would assume the uploader did not wish to title his/her images, like I do not care about titles in all the images I uploded over the years. Creating default titles for others would need to be a bot job and I doubt it would be approved. But we can offer a service where people that want titles can request for them to be added to their files. --Jarekt (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Jarekt: Then what about using a word like "media" to link to the source if no {{credit line}} or {{Title}}? The Media Viwers also need to to updated; as it is now using file name as title. I think they did it on the advice of Legal. So we need to consult them (legal) too? Jee 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The Media Viwer is not suggesting attribution strings. I do not see any problem with it. I also do not see how is it related to the discussion about a license template. --Jarekt (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Jarekt: See this discussion. Media Viewer or any other third party automated tools need to pick the license and attribution string properly from our tags. A manual user can pick it even from data scattered in various locations. Jee 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Jarekt: While experimenting with [1], I found another option without title: "This work by <author name with url> is licensed under a <License name with url>. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at <source url>". Can we proceed this way? See Option 3. Jee 09:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the changes, but it would be good to include the "Licensor cannot revoke the licence" part in all the deeds here, and the CC Some Rights Reserved image on the left would look better using the version on our current commons deeds. --Graphium 07:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Graphium: I included an example showing those information too. Regarding logo, they are a collection of three separate logos; will change automatically in the layout template to match with the license used. (eg: CC BY, CC BY-SA, etc.). Regarding the design, see http://creativecommons.org/policies#license. It should be a "double C in a circle". Jee 03:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jkadavoor: Ok noted. Just adding one more suggestion. There should be a spacing between the "CC Some Rights Reserved" logo and the "Attribution" and/or "ShareAlike" buttons. The template appears better that way IMO. --Graphium 05:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hope the alignment problem will be solved by the code experts while implementing. Jee 06:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As far as I know, the CC-licenses also require the re-user to name the license the work is made available under. That's something we have always neglected for reasons I don't remember, but this seems like a good opportunity to re-think the issue and maybe put an additional notice into the templates. --El Grafo (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • El Grafo, I think it is well mentioned under the "appropriate credit" link. There is some more conditions for adaptations of BY-SA licenses. They are mentioned under "same license". Jee 14:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jee, I must admit I didn't notice that when I first looked through the proposal. All in all, it looks very reasonable to me. Are the wiki pages linked in the new template available in other languages than english? Couldn't find any direct links there … --El Grafo (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Noted; will look into it. Thanks. Jee 15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Any news on that? If there are no translations of that, we should think about other ways to make sure people know they have to name the license. (I think that's a very important part that has been neglected far too long). --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like the approach this is taking and have promoted these changes in the past. Our license templates should at a minimum contain all the things the relevent CC Deed does. BTW, the word Notices is bolded and need not be to create a common format. Otherwise bold the other section headings. When there is a final version it should be put up for a !Vote, not yet while discussion ensues. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oops; I forgot it while correcting per Colin. Jee 14:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fix the English please. "Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. --> "Foo" by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. --Graphium 16:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    There no "the" at CreativeCommonsWiki:Best practices for attribution or in the attribution link generated by Media Viewer. So I doubt with is the best English style. Jee 14:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    That's because they never spell out the full name with "License" at the end. "the" is required here for style reasons, without it it sounds clumsy. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks ChrisiPK, I re checked and found that they use a whenever full name is spelled. They use "License" and "license". So the or a? Jee 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    @Jkadavoor: It would be good to follow what CC uses, which in this case is "a". However English-wise I think "the" is more appropriate. Let's wait for Chris' input. --Graphium 09:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I added a second example covering all CC terms in the deed. Note that I included the "exception" clause too under "notices". Jee 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The advice of the legal team is requested, and LuisV (WMF) offered to help. Jee 06:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Files on Flickr have a headline and a description. The headline could arguably be a title, but is sometimes something useless such as "IMG1234.JPG". Should we interpret it as a title? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Be careful with how you use words such as "material" and "work" and how you name the rights holder. They have different definitions, and if the licence uses a different word than the template proposals above, this could have strange results in court. For example, the Swedish copyright law provides protection to the following kinds of material:
Kind of material Rights holder Explanation
Works Author A work is something which meets certain quality requirements, see COM:TOO. Parts of the quality requirements come from the notion that a work must be "created", and parts of them come from the word "work" itself. Split in two groups: "artworks" and "literary works", with different degrees of protection.
Performances Performing artist Only performances of literary works are protected, see "works" above. The performance itself doesn't need to meet any quality requirements. On Commons, this should only affect sound and video files.
Sound and video recordings Producer No quality requirements needed, but protection is only given to the first fixation. Mere duplication doesn't reset the term. Some recordings are also protected as works and/or performances.
Catalogues et cetera Producer See w:Database Directive.
Photographic images Producer It must be a photograph and it must be an image. Some photographs are also protected as works. No quality requirements needed, but it seems that only new photographic images are protected and that new copies of existing photographic images aren't separately protected. Strange applications of COM:DW, see e.g. NJA 1989 p. 315 (drawings based on photographs weren't copyright violations). Single frames in films count as photographs if created using a camera.

Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Stefan4. My understanding form the previous discussions with CC community is that they changed the word "Work" to "Licensed Material" to accommodate databases. (See [2], [3]).) They replaced the word in almost every places; but still using "work" in marking guides. I don't know whether it is an unnoticed error or not. I can see many such errors (like license text changed to CC BY 4.0; but links till to CC BY 3.0) in their sites. Reported to them; but doesn't get any reply so far. Jee 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, different versions of CC licences use different words. Use the word "work" in the templates for licences which license works, and use the word "material" in the templates for licences which license material. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan4: But they (CC) changed the word "work" to "material" in all of their deeds, even in CC BY-SA 1.0. We need not compelled to follow them; but I wonder what they mean by such changes. Jee 17:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
That's strange. We should try to figure out why they did this. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe the intent was to have a more generic term that would not depend on what is used in a specific jurisdiction, so that the license would be more robust across national boundaries and types of material. "work" can still be found in the body of the license itself, as part of the definition of "Licensed Material" in 4.0: "the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License".
I'm not sure I would have made this change to the older deeds, but it is important to keep in mind that in the situations where the work/material distinction is legally important, the legal code, not the deed, is likely to be what is getting read/interpreted. So being consistent and easy-to-understand is arguably more important than being legally precise in this particular situation. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, with smart templates we could avoid this problem by saying "image", "video", "recording", etc. (depending on mimetype) instead of "work" or "material". This would be more clear for most non-lawyer users and not bother the lawyers (since they'd read the full license anyway). CC is stuck using generic words, but we don't have to be. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Or we can use the word "media" to cover all of our contents (if a mimetype check is not practical)? Jee 17:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan4: @Jkadavoor: @LuisV (WMF): "Material" was used because the license is not always being applied to the entirety of what most people would consider a "work", and sometimes what the license is applied to isn't considered a work of authorship. So yes, databases—not generally considered works of authorship, but are "licensed material"; other things that don't strictly fall under the definition of "work" in a jurisdiction but include rights that are licensable under CC licenses might also count. But also it is more accurate in the case where only certain elements are being released under the CC license—only an excerpt from a book, only the music from a video, only the content from a website but not its copyrightable design elements. You could still accurately call these "works" (the wording on the older licenses isn't wrong in these cases) but it is confusing to people who see that the license applies to the work and don't know that "work" may be defined to be a smaller subset of the more obvious thing. We chose "material" not only to be more broadly inclusive but to indicate that a license may not necessarily apply to the entirety of a thing, but only to a separately copyrightable element. (Not that CC encourages people licensing things in a confusing fashion--if you license a bunch of different elements of a larger work differently, even if you mark them all as clearly as possible, it is probably just asking for trouble. But it is legally possible and people were in fact doing this with their materials.) Using "work" is not wrong; using "material" is more generic. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 19:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is moving in the entirely wrong direction. The licensing notices are already too verbose. The proposed versions are twice as long and guarantee that no one will ever bother reading them. Why do we always have to make things more complicated (to the point of absurdity), rather than simplifying. Does anyone think that users actually read the wall of text at Special:Upload, for example? Less is more. Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: We had considers a brief option too at Template talk:Cc-by-sa-4.0. So either it can be as brief as a 1. single line (This work/material by <author> is licensed under a <license name with link to deed>. You can find a specimen of this license at <link to legal code>.) or 2. a summary of the license. Most of our other license tags are very brief. I don't know why CC tags are designed in a different way. Anyway the current tag is not acceptable as CC already changed many words/explanations in their deeds. Jee 03:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jkadavoor: I'm fine with changing the wording, but can we have a simpler option to vote on? I don't like any of the lengthy ones suggested above and actually think they would make people less likely to understand the licensing. Kaldari (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: Sure. Could you add one as option 4? I'm happy to wait more time for further suggestions before the voting start. Jee 05:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I added a 4th option which keeps things simple, but still emphasizes the most important piece of information, the attribution. Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: Thanks; it is an acceptable compromise for me. One minor suggestion. The word "file" is a bit confusing as it was a matter of debate here. According to CC's stand the license is applicable to the Licensed Material without considering the medium of expression or quality. So I think a word "Material", "Work" or "Media" may more suitable than "File". Jee 06:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Good point. I'll change it. Kaldari (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not yet sure whether I'd prefer a long or a short version, but what I do like a lot about option 4 is the emphasis on the attribution part. I'd very much prefer this. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of the current options given, a useful possibility would be Option 1 with the title and author of the work being optional i.e. the top line could read "This work by Real name (www.example.com) is licensed under" or "This work is licensed under". Wikimedia Commons has many already uploaded works for which changing the deed markup would not automatically cause the work title and author info to appear in the deed. In addition, it may happen where an altered version (i.e. a derivative work) of a CC-licensed work is uploaded and in such a case, assuming that there is only one author name may be problematic. For the Option 1 deed, it would also be useful for the deed to mention that commercial usage is allowed, possibly by changing "upon the material" to "upon the material, even commercially" for clarification. --Gazebo (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pinging early participants for further input: @, FDMS4, Dereckson:, @Colin, Jarekt, Multichill:, @El Grafo, Saffron Blaze, ChrisiPK:... Jee 09:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I had totally forgotten about this discussion and now I am somewhat late to the party. The current suggestions are all still too explanatory for my taste. Note that we don't provide for any other licenses (e.g. {{GFDL}}, {{FAL}}) and from looking at the WMF input below it seems this is a good idea to protect both us and reusers. So my recommendation would be to change the template to visibly identify the licensing elements but not explain what they entail. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks ChrisiPK. I like simple tags like {{GFDL}} and {{FAL}}) too. Since this is an important step, let us wait and see what WMF will say. Jee 13:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Jkadavoor: then maybe we should abort the voting for now and postpone it? --El Grafo (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've no clear idea. Usually Legal take much time to make any comment. In the mean time, I will try to add a simple option too as ChrisiPK suggested. Jee 15:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't follow the discussion either, but has it been discussed whether we could make the license details collapsible? They could be expanded by default for logged-out and new users, and collapsed by default for experienced users …    FDMS  4    15:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WMF input[edit]

Hi everyone, I asked the WMF people for input. Actually for two types of input:

  1. Legal part: The license templates should be as short as possible (less is more!), but legally sound
  2. Design part: Our current layout has been in use for quite some time and can use an update. If we're rebuilding all cc license templates we might as well make them look more appealing

They're not telling us what to do, but advising us (the community) so we can make a decision. The people who'll take the lead from the WMF side:

  1. Legal part: Luis Villa (WMF wiki / wp entry). He knows quite a bit about copyright and cc licenses specifically, he's even doing a presentation about it on Wikimania
  2. Design part: Mun May Tee-Galloway (WMF wiki). One of the designers who will have a fresh view on the layout here. She has a specialty: icons!

Some other WMF people might help out too. I hope this helps to increase the quality of our licensing templates. Multichill (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi Multichill, thanks for asking them. Nothing wrong with a design overhaul in general, but I'd suggest to keep that separate from the content part this discussion is about. It's already complicated enough, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Multichill and El Grafo. It will be very helpful if WMF can advise/help us. I too mentioned this with Luis Villa earlier. So I think we can wait a bit more? Jee 10:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If we wait for WMF legal we may be here until next year. I say we provide a license template that replicates the deed offered by CC (their legal obviously had input into that and thinks they are valid) Then link to the license itself only. As to design, make that a separate issue. No need waiting for this cosmetic update as that can be done only after we decide on content anyway. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So, some preliminary thoughts from me - thanks to Multichill and Jee for asking me to weigh in; sorry I couldn't do it more promptly.

  • There is no legally right/wrong answer, because there isn't much precedent for analyzing this sort of "summary" of a legal agreement. So these comments are even less legal advice than usual. They're essentially opinions of what I would think about if I were doing this for the Foundation; they're not statements of the law/meaning of the license, and they aren't the Foundation saying "do X".
  • I think it would be very good if design could weigh in before any decisions are made about which words to use, for two reasons. First, readability: more words + better visual design might be just as readable as fewer words + current (not very good) visual design. So the design may impact how many words we choose. Second, design will influence content and vice-versa: design may have creative ideas on how to present the core ideas, like a complete reorganization, or suggesting a "hide this in future" button, or many other things. They don't just simply make the words we choose prettier :)
  • This is probably obvious, but most of the wording improvements suggested by CC are, I think, no-brainers to adopt. For example, the new attribution language is much more helpful to readers than the old attribution language. So I'm glad to see that mostly reflected in the options above.
  • I suspect that attribution and the license information should not be mixed together. That can make it very confusing to know what attribution a user should use - the one in the "use this file" widget? The one in the license text? ...? There is also a lot of duplication- many repetitions of the file name, author name, etc. (I should also say that I'm pointing out the problem, but design will probably have better solutions for it than I will :)
  • If design and/or the community wants to cut word count, I would suggest leaving in restrictions (DRM clause, "may not give you all of the rights") and leaving out the non-core permissions ("licensor cannot revoke", "exception or limitation"). Prioritizing this way respects licensors and reduces the risk of a mistake for users.
  • I am biased, because I pushed CC to add it to the deed, but I think the "no additional restrictions" language needs to be in the summary. That is a core requirement of the license and should be visible to reusers.
  • The "no warranties are given" and "only some of the key features" language might make sense to move outside of the CC template, and use more widely, since those are true of essentially all of the license templates as far as I know (with the obvious exception of PD, since there is no "actual license" to link to).

Those are my preliminary thoughts; sorry they can't be more concrete/specific but this isn't that sort of problem :/ Hope they are helpful. I'm very busy in the run up to Wikimania but will try to be as responsive as possible here. Thanks! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on your points I'm wondering if we should work on a expandable show/hide template like at this example. We could show the minimum information in normal view and have the option to expand to show more information. Just a thought.... Multichill (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Multichill: Seems a good idea. I already implemented it for my old licenses. (FDMS4 also made a similar suggestion above.) Jee 15:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Both of those examples hide the whole thing. I think I was thinking of hiding just the new "notices" section, since that is secondary information. In my mind, the important thing (that many of the PD templates get wrong :/ ) is to clearly explain to users what rights they have, so I would think we would always want to show the rights/basic responsibilities.
They also seem to default to closed, which is probably not ideal, but then again, I'm not a designer - I'd just like to be one in my next life ;) —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@LuisV (WMF): Dou you mean option 6? Jee 17:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, something like that! I might consider calling them "Additional details" instead of "notices" if we went this route - the extra word won't hurt since so much else is hidden. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can live with version 6. Version 6 still links to the deed instead of the actual license. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Saffron Blaze: It has two links. One to deed and one to actual license under "Additional details". I think the CC deed is available in more languages than the legal code (not sure). I think it is OK; but open for further suggestions. Jee 03:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry Jee, but from the beginning it was pointed out that the template was in effect a deed and linking to it was redundant. The header link should be to the full text of the license and thus the link in the sentences would serve no further purpose. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Saffron Blaze: I understand, and agree. Since our new template cover almost everything in the deed, there is no need to link again to it. Jee 15:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Multichill, any response from Mun May Tee-Galloway? Jee 15:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Still working on it. But I agree with showing the most important info first and then make it an option to expand the rest if users want to find out more. I'll get back to you guys hopefully at latest the end of next week. MGalloway (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

de:Datei:Super_RTL_logo_2013.svg[edit]

Hello everyone,

is it possible to transfer this File to Commons?

--Dasas (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dasas: In my opinion: yes. In transferred it to File:Super RTL logo 2013.svg. — ireas (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello ireas, thanks for the help. --Dasas (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:King Abdullah of Jordan (6436574483).jpg[edit]

The watermark at the bottom of the image reads "Yousef Allan". Since he seems to be a professional photographer, and that watermark is not present on other images in the same Flickr channel, is it safe to crop the picture? --Ricordisamoa 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominations of files with copyright by ArcSoft in the EXIF[edit]

Administrators: please read the entry this thread before taking any action over the files used in ArcSoft products by end users)

I noticed than various Deletion requests were opened indicating copyvio as reason, because these uploads have copyright by ArcSoft Inc. in the EXIF, placed automatically by the ArcSoft USB Webcam (and possibly other products from this vendor). ArcSoft Inc. is a imaging and multimedia hardware and software manufacturer and vendor (like Nikon or Adobe).

Obviously, ArcSoft (and any multimedia hardware or software vendor) can't take the copyright of the files used with their products by end users, regardless the copyright claimed in the EXIF metadata (the same case if Photoshop puts copyright by Adobe in the EXIF of a picture edited by an end user); the actual copyright belongs to the end user or original author, not the hardware or software vendor!. This is a huge and serious copyright issue that affects the end users of ArcSoft and the whole industry. That than also is serious, many admins are failing to do a deep research before deleting files.

Some of the files (most of them NSFW):

And many more (add more files if you found).

Please discuss about them. I insist, the vendors of imaging hardware or software can't take copyright of the files used in their products by the end users, this is ridiculous. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It'd be nice of you to mention not safe for work. LX (talk, contribs) 10:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Not safe for work is completely outside the discussion; Commons is not censored. This is a copyright-related discusssion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitie 10g (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 July 2014‎ (UTC)
The fact that Commons is uncensored does not mean that it's a good idea to surprise people with bloody penises. I really shouldn't have to explain this, but it's common courtesy, especially when asking people for help, to them an idea of what to expect when you ask them to look at a bunch of files such as these with mostly meaningless names. LX (talk, contribs) 21:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, this is a Copyright discussion focussed specifically in the EXIF metadata claiming for copyright added automatically by some software or hardware, in order to clarify the copyright status of these files and ArcSoft (and the multimedia industry in general). Please keep inside the topic of this discussion and use the correspondient Deletion requests or open another thread in the Village Pump to discuss anything else. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, if people want to look at examples of the same problem on non medical and more ordinary images, they can look at File:ArcSoft Image344.jpg and File:Image196 finanzas.jpg. (Admins: although those two images seem to be unused personal images, please try not to delete them while they can be useful in this discussion.) -- Asclepias (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I rather agree that if anyone can be considered the author and copyright owner of a picture that a user takes with his webcam, it is that user, who is positioning the webcam and the subjects and who controls the surroundings, the lighting, etc., more than the company who manufactured the software. In that sense, the deletion rationale of Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArcSoft Image100.jpg is surprising. It could have been better explained. I can think of other possible reasons for deletion, perhaps the absence of evidence of permission from the medical patient. But to attribute the copyright to the software manufacturing company instead of to the creator of the image seems strange. Are there previous deletion requests where this was more explained? -- Asclepias (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I need to emphatyse your phase his webcam, because the owner of the webcam is, obviously, the user that purshased the hardware, not the manufactured. Neither hardware or software vendor have a license agreement indicating than they can take the copyright of these works (and this violates consumer-protection laws in almost all countries, specially with hardware). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been looking trying to find the text of the contract that ArcSoft proposes to the users of the software ArcSoft WebCam Companion, to see if it includes a section to the effect that the users of the software agree to give their copyrights to ArcSoft on every image they create, and in connection to which a use of the software may have been involved one way or the other. I haven't found an available copy of the contract. The websites I looked required initiating the download process of the software before allowing to read the contract. If someone finds an accessible copy of the contract, please mention the link. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Although Commons is not censored, it is fair to add NSF warnings while posting in a high traffic thread. This is a general practice here.
I agree with Asclepias; it seems Amitie 10g failed to present his/her arguments properly in that DR. He should have mentioned "he forgot to change the EXIF settings" or something similar.
I don't know the importance of subject permission in this case; hope Jmh649 can give a better advice. Jee 03:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
✓OK, NSFW waring placed above. Amitie 10g (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the file File:ArcSoft_Image100.jpg were deleted, I've forced to request their restoration in the Administrator's Notice board.

Also, I'm creating a template explaining than ArcSoft si not the copyright holder. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The camera manufacturer is certainly not the copyright holder, but I nominated Commons:Deletion requests/File:Image196 finanzas.jpg‎ for deletion as "Out of scope". Regards, Yann (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Since there is an open UnDR on one of these files, that is the only appropriate place for discussion of this problem. Opening multiple out of process threads here and at ANB is not helpful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I provided a very biref explanation in the UnDR and linking to this thread. No more files were deleted (except for the two last due to COM:SCOPE). This is the right place for general discussion about this problem, not limited to ArcSoft products, but the other multimedia companies. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Signed permission is not needed if person not identifiable. Verbal permission is between the person taking the image and the person in the image. The College of Physicians and Surgeons deal with issues if they arise. Wikipedia need not get involved.
Images are not of great quality. I will take a better one when I have the chance. James Heilman, MD (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominations of files with copyright by ArcSoft Inc. in the EXIF (general discussion)[edit]

Me

Note than this thred is for general discussion about this issue, not for requesting an UnDR for the files already deleted (by right and correct reasons), including the unused selfies. See the above first thread and the previous UnDR to get more information about this discussion. This problem affects not only ArcSoft Inc. end users, but almost for all multimedia companies.

Please read the entry this thread before taking further action over future uploads affected by this issue.

Once again, I need to discuss this huge problem with ArcSoft Inc. and their end users (consumers, including me).

And therefore, I finally done that the neither other user or admin done: Use an ArcSoft product to research if this problem is really true. Then, I just downloaded the ArcSoft Webcam Companion software (available in their official website). This program can capture from any Webcam, applies filters and do some funny things on them.

But, them has a serious drawback: The Trial version places automatically "ArcSoft Inc." in the Copyright field in the EXIF metadata (that I tried to explain several times before). This can be easily modified or removed, but most of the end users will not do them (see the ArcSoft answer bellow).

Then, I just toke my own selfie with a print in my hands, indicating than the copyright of them belongs to me, not to ArcSoft Inc. (see the picture and the EXIF metadata at the bottom of the page). Simple and marvelous.

Need more evidences? In any case of doubt, I need to record with an external video camera, the procedure that I' ve done, and upload to Youtube. Is this necessary? --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't modify the copyright field in this example, but I don't know if that's part of the experiment or not. Did you find if that field can be modified by the user? -- Asclepias (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Any experienced user can edit the EXIF metadata with specialiced software. But I'm assuming good faith indicating than I don't modified the picture in any way before uploading to Commons. Why lie to the community? --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That was not the question. And what are you talking about lying to the community? I'm not asking out of context if anybody can tamper with the EXIF of any image with unrelated specialized software. I'm following-up in the context of the previous comments about this software we're talking about, where it was suggested that maybe the users had merely forgotten to customize the settings of the software. I was under the impression that was part of the idea of doing the experiment. Was it not? I'm asking if you could confirm or not that the software is customizable in that manner, that the mention of ArcSoft is merely a sort of placeholder and it is expected that even the unexperienced user will easily customize the settings. If the software provides preferences where the user is expected to input his information, then that makes it rather obvious that ArcSoft did not mean to claim a copyright on the images. If the mention is not modifiable unless by an experienced user editing the EXIF with unrelated specialized software, that is more a problem. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right. Most major editors can change the EXIF, but most end users don't know how (that you know), but I don't found an option to change them in the ArcSoft WebCam Companion that I downloaded. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Did anyone ever ask Arcsoft support? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I will contact to ArcSoft, but I think than is better than an administrator or an WMF employee contacts the vendor. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I just sended a message to ArcSoft, and I will recibe an asnwer at leats 48 hours. This tread should be considered as active until I recive the answer from ArcSoft Inc. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Answer from ArcSoft Inc.[edit]

Well, as I mentioned above, I sended a support message to the mentioned vendor:


My message[edit]

7/26/2014 17:56:06

Subject: Copyright status in the EXIF metadata in the output images
Question:
ArcSoft Inc. I' ve downloaded the ArcSoft Webcam Companion. A nice product, but when export the pictures taken by the Webcam, the software adds ArcSoft Inc. in the copyright field in the EXIF metadata.
Does the software a way to remove ArcSoft Inc. and put my own copyright notice? And a stupid question, Is ArcSoft Inc. the copyright holder of the files used on your products? This may causes som issues when I upload the files to some sites as Flickr or Wikimedia Commons. Thanks in advance for an answer.

ArcSoft answer[edit]

7/28/2014 00:24:26
Support Answer:
Hello David,
Thanks for contacting ArcSoft. I am Earl from ArcSoft Support Team. I am here to help.
Judged from the information you provided, it seems that you are using the trial version, which show copyright filed in EXIF metadata when you export the file. When you purchase the program, and then download or activate the program as a full version, the copyright notice will be removed.
If there is anything else that we can do for you please let us know.
Best Regards,
ArcSoft Support Team

Conclusions: ArcSoft Inc. don't and will not actually take the copyright of our works used in their products (the actual copyright still belong to us).

As I appreciated (not assuming bad faith), this demonstrates than many administrators are failing to do the correspondient research before deleting or nominating files for deletion. These kind of questionable deletion requests (specially that started by Jim (talk · contribs)) shouldn't be started again, and the affected files should be deleted only with valid reasons (see bellow). Almost all the files affected in this case were deleted due to be Outside the Project Scope (that is correct), but the DRs were opened with the questionable arguments as ArcSoft as the actual copyright holder. No more doubts.

Sorry James, You already lost my trust as you as Commons administrator. All of us are humans and we can commit mistakes. But, I done all the research that you SHOULD be done as administrator, in order to clarify YOUR doubts.

Administrators and users in general, please ensure than this cases (not only limited to ArcSoft Inc.) will not be repeated again. Therefore, the fact than ArcSoft Inc. is the copyright holder of a file made by end users is not longer a valid reason for deletion. (no lawyers or copyright experts needed to affirm this, only some common sense). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Amitie, I understand you feel aggrieved by this whole issue but unfortunately the job of providing such evidence falls to the uploader or the person who supports keeping the file, per project scope. Thus it isn't the DR nominators responsibility to search for this evidence. The one thing that does not appear to have been mentioned until now is that you appear to have created files using the trial version of the software. My non-lawyer/non-admin understanding of the ArcSoft response is that they believe they own the copyright on files created using the trial version but that they will surrender such rights if you buy the full version of the software. This does not necessarily mean that they do own the copyright but I can see their point of view. I think the best way to resolve this question might be to see whether this situation occurs on trial versions of other software. If it does happen on other trial versions, then perhaps we need to reach a communal decision about whether such copyright assertions are correct. Additionally I note that the EULA appears to have only been posted at Pastebin on 27 July 2014. Is it possible to view a copy of the EULA at ArcSoft's own website without installing the software? My tuppence worth o'opinion. Green Giant (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't found the EULA in the ArcSoft official Website, but is available in the ArcSoft Webcam Companion installer (the EULA in Pastebin is a verbatim copy of the EULA in the installer). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How old does a photo need to be before it can be assumed to be out of copyright?[edit]

Photograph of the inclined plane on the West Somerset Mineral Railway. Taken by Herbert H Hole who died in 1900

How old does a photo need to be before it can be assumed to be out of copyright? There are several photographs over 100 years old which I would like to use to illustrate the wikipedia article of the West Somerset Mineral Railway. Thos showing the line in operation must be pre 1910 and most likely pre 1898 but although I've found them via Google images licenced for reuse I can't identify the photographer or the year they were taken. The images are at:

I'd particular like one of the inclined plane (eg this one dated 1907) but I'm unsure what it is OK to reuse. Any help or advice appreciated.Rodw (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on works lasts for life+70 in the UK. If you don't know anything about the photos, you can't really say they're anonymous, and thus you have to figure for the worst.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks what I thought, however I've now got from another book that many of the pics were taken by Herbert Hole who died in 1900, while the other main photographer of the railway, James Date, died in 1895 (age 88), so I am encouraged to look more deeply.Rodw (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
While in UK anonymous works get a 70-year copyright, in USA, it is more complex. If published before 1923, then it is in the public domain, but unpublished works get 120 years from date of creation. So if we can't any information about the author or the publication, only pictures older than 1894 are OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've uploaded one (shown on the right), from Flickr where it says "all rights reserved" but the same photo is in a book which credits it to Herbert Hole (died 1900). Could someone take a look and see if the copyright information etc is OK/sufficient?Rodw (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If the photo was scanned by a third party and the image may have been retouched in a noncreative manner, using the {{PD-scan}} tag along with a licensing tag may be useful; the When to use the PD-scan tag guideline has more info. Note that for works of UK origin, information needs to be provided as to why the work is out of copyright both in the UK and the US. If a UK work was published before 1923 in the US or outside the US in compliance with US formalities (see this chart) and is also out of copyright in the UK because the author died in 1900, it might be possible to use a tag like {{PD-scan|PD/1923|deathyear=1900}} for clarification. --Gazebo (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think in this case {{PD-old-100}} is appropriate. I also upload the high resolution version. As download is "disable" for this picture, trick has to been used. :( Regards, Yann (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on new audio recording[edit]

This idea of mine is still in the earliest stages, but I can't find the answer to me question in the archives:

I know someone (not very well) who owns a professional sound studio. I know several people who speak non-English languages natively. My idea is to get them together to make some good audio recordings of how to pronounce common words or simple phrases, in the hope that it would be useful for Wiktionary or Wikivoyage.

Here's my current question: Who would own the copyright?

We're not going to be allowed to use the equipment ourselves. There would be a sound tech involved. The sound tech's job would mostly be turning on and off the equipment when he's told to and handing over a copy of the file at the end (presumably for editing/splitting up later), which—although time-consuming work—doesn't sound like "creativity" to me. The "script" is going to be so boring as to be uncopyrightable ("Count to ten"). The "voice actor" would be choosing pace, tone, and rhythm, which sounds probably copyrightable to me.

So my thinking is that the "voice actor" would hold the copyright—except that with photos, we assume that the copyright holder is the person who pushed the button to take the picture, even if that person was exercising no more control than an automatic timer (e.g., because someone else choose lighting, subject, settings, etc.), and if that's the right standard, then it's the sound tech, or maybe both of them.

What do you think? If (a pretty big 'if') I can talk them into this, I could presumably get them to sign off on anything, but doing the least paperwork is best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the sound-recording technician is automatically granted copyright to sound recordings, under U.S. law at least... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding determining who is the copyright holder for photos, this entry from Wikilegal may be of interest; from what they say, under US law, whether someone is the copyright holder for a photo is primarily determined by how much control they had over the aspects of originality (lighting, angle, poses) for the photo. In the audio recording case you describe, that would suggest that the voice actor would be more of a copyright holder than the sound tech-it might be worth considering if technical actions by studio personnel such as determining the recording volume or sensitivity settings for microphones or the quality level for digital audio storage could cause persons other than the voice actor to have copyright interests. The Commons Licensing policy describes (as an example) the copyright holders for a musical recording and separately lists the performers and the technical personnel or recording company. At the same time, the example clarifies that the details may vary by country and that the situation is unclear. --Gazebo (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I doubt that I'll be able to talk to everyone until after the summer vacation season is over, but this is helpful advice for me when I ask them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Upgrading to {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} license for my uploads[edit]

Now that I've noticed that Commons has enabled the {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} license as a rather conspicuous option in UploadWizard, I think it might be time to start using this license for my own uploads. In an attempt to standardize and future-proof my licensing, I implemented a custom license template a couple of years ago that licenses all of my photographs under the {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} and {{GFDL}} licenses. My question is (when I update) if I can replace the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license in the template with the 4.0 license, or whether I should add the 4.0 as a third license alongside the 3.0 and GFDL. I understand that the CC licenses are irrevocable, and obviously I wouldn't stop anyone from using any of my photos under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, now or at any point in the future. However, I'm not quite so clear on the issue of stopping the release of photos under one license and starting licensing under another (very similar) one. To make a long story short, I'm curious if I can simply replace the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license in my custom license template with the CC-BY-SA-4.0, or if I need to retain the 3.0 alongside the 4.0. I would appreciate any clarification or advice on this issue. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A similar point is that Template:Cc-by-sa-all now redirects to Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0. Should it now include 4.0? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Michael Barera: Although CC themselves replaced CC BY 3.0 with CC BY 4.0 as the default license for their web pages, it is not an advisable practice here. So the best practice is to add CC BY-SA 4.0 as an additional license. As you are using a custom tag, you can easily implement it this way. See how I did it too.
@AnonMoos: See this edit. Template:Cc-by-sa-all is a bad name and it is better no to alter it. We've no guarantee that people use it with proper awareness. Most CC BY-SA licenses are compatible will future revisions, and adapters are free to use a new version for their release; but it doesn't mean we can apply CC BY-SA 4.0 to the original works with an old license without authors permission. Jee 03:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Jee. I really do appreciate it! Michael Barera (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Jkadavoor -- images with existing Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 license presumably shouldn't be relicensed, but perhaps Template:Cc-by-sa-all should now redirect to Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

May be OK if all existing usage are moved to Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 (as did earlier). Jee 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

French stamp help wanted[edit]

I tagged quite a few stamps from Category: Stamps of France because I think about half in the category are still in copyright based on the designers' death dates. Most, maybe all, of the suspect stamps were uploaded by Xavierdelavilledeparis and appear to come from this website but they don't seem to have had their status fully checked though several were already deleted back in February soon after they were uploaded. An incomplete list of PD and non-PD French stamp designers is listed at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#France and I have added some of those missing names with details. Each stamps must be induividually checked, so a mass deletion is not appropriate. Can some other editors please assist in reviewing the stamps and/or adding missing designer details? Many French stamps have the designer's name within the stamp design. This website also has a designer's list with biographical information that may be useful in determining death dates. Ww2censor (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Some questions about copyrights.[edit]

I want to upload some images from this page Yeobombom 140629 서든어택 미니콘서트 에이핑크 직찍, but I don't know what is licence it using.

I found on that page some information:

  • At the bottom of last image, there're 3 copyright icons: "Attribution:Yes", "Non-profit:No", "Prevent changes:No" (in bold is original Korean characters).
  • In source code of the page, rdf file content:
<!--
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/" 
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" 
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<Work rdf:about="">
<license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/" />
</Work>
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/">
<permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction"/>
<permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution"/>
<requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"/>
<requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution"/>
<prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse"/>
</License>
</rdf:RDF>
-->

Please tell me, may I upload some images from that page? If the answer is yes, what licence of them? May I have rights to crop them? If I can upload them, how can I get them to be reviewed? I'm waiting for answers. Keaclamviectot (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It is CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR licensed; so not acceptable here due to the NC (commercial use not permitted) and ND (derivation/adaptation not permitted) clauses. We only accept CC BY and CC BY-SA licenses. Jee 08:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Chinese music[edit]

I'm interested in uploading some old recordings of popular and classical Chinese music, but reading the copyright page I'm somewhat confused about the copyright status. Would I be right in thinking that songs released over 50 years ago are permissible to be uploaded, or would that be 50 years after the death of the songwriter? For example, one song I want to upload is a song from 1927, "The Drizzle" ("毛毛雨"), widely considered to be the first Chinese pop song. The songwriter Li Jinhui died in 1967, so can I upload now or do I have to wait until 2017? There are many recordings from the 1930s and 1940s I am interesting in uploading but I have no idea about their copyright status.

Another recording I want to upload is a piece of Confucian ritual music (yayue) recorded c. 1925, but I have no idea when it was first published. I found it in a CD included in a book published in 2007 by Oxford University Press which claimed copyright to the recordings on the CD. What would the situation be with this recording? Axb3 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Can no one help? Or even to make a suggestion? Should I just upload "The Drizzle" and see if it gets deleted? Axb3 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Copyright issues are not always simple (to say the least) but here goes. For a recording of music, it is necessary to consider the copyright of the specific recording and also the copyright of the music which is incorporated into the recording. A recording may be copyrighted even if it is a recording of only uncopyrighted music and vice versa. (As a side note, from what one understands, publication of a sound recording does not constitute publication of any underlying musical work for US copyright purposes unless the publication of the recording was in 1978 or later; publication of music before then would have to have involved public distribution of sheet music, for example.)
Given the information at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#China and Peter Hirtle's copyright chart, among other sources, it would seem that musical works of Chinese origin would be out of copyright in China and the US (a requirement for Commons) if they were (1) published before July 1909 or (2) published with a copyright notice between July 1909 and December 31, 1922 or (3) published in noncompliance with US formalities (i.e. copyright renewal after 28 years) prior to 1946 with the copyright holder being a legal entity or (4) the author died before 1946 and the work was published in noncompliance with US formalities. From what one can tell, copyright terms in China are generally the author's lifespan plus 50 years, or, if the copyright holder was a legal entity, 50 years from first publication. If a Chinese work was published in noncompliance with US formalities but was still under copyright in China when the URAA law in the US went into effect (for most cases, the URAA date is January 1, 1996) then the Chinese work would likely have become copyrighted in the US under the URAA (1996 - 50 = 1946.)
For musical works of US origin (including works simultaneously published in the US and China), such a work would have to have been (1) published prior to 1923 or (2) published after 1923 but before March 1989 and in noncompliance with US copyright formalities.
For sound recordings, the copyright situation in the US is a special case of sorts and the simple answer is that very few recordings are definitively out of copyright in the US. Of particular interest is Peter Hirtle's chart (see "Sound Recordings") and the {{PD-US-record}} talk page.
Perhaps someone else can look at this answer as well. --Gazebo (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I would assume that the work was published in noncompliance with US formalities, but then, I can't be sure (is there any way to find out?). All I can say is that it is most likely the 1927 original recording (it was sung by the songwriter's daughter and done in a singing style that went out of fashion by the early 1930s), but not knowing more about it, I would assume it's best not to upload it? Apart from the Chinese ones, I have many European and American recordings from the 19th century and early 20th century, I would assume those are OK for uploading. I also have some old recordings from around the world from the Berliner Phonogramm-Archiv that I'm thinking of uploading, but I'm not sure about their copyright status. Axb3 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Asilomar Conference Grounds room[edit]

This photo is on Flickr under CC-BY 2.0, and high resolution versions are available. In looking at the photo, the question is, would the painting towards the right of the room pose a copyright issue, and if so, could the issue be worked around by retouching the picture to conspicuously blur the painting? In addition, parts of the bedspreads appear to have some sort of decorative design on them, but it seems that the design (if copyrighted) would likely be de minimis and therefore not an issue. Any thoughts? --Gazebo (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that the painting and each of the spreads are definitely de minimis. While it is possible that a crop of the image showing only the painting or only one of the spreads might be a problem, that does not affect the image as a whole. We have many hi-res images that have elements that cannot be shown separately. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. LX (talk, contribs) 18:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Film Daily[edit]

Hi,

Would this magazine quality under {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}? IA, File:1932 DeLuxe Purchase Film Daily Article.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Well, it can't be tagged with "no notice", given that there's a notice on page 2 that reads "copyright (1932) by Wid's Films and Film Folk, Inc.". To know if it can be tagged "not renewed", you will have to look into the renewal records until you can safely conclude it's not there. It's not in this issue or this issue, but it might be somewhere else. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not renewed. I checked periodicals for renewals in 1959 and 1960 and there's no listing for the magazine. We hope (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I added {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Questionable uploaded images from PHLCP14[edit]

Can someone please take at look at the images uploaded by PHLCP14? The copyright claims seems to be questionable in the handful of images I've examined e.g., this image was marked as being public domain since it's from the U.S. federal government but the image clearly indicates it's from the city of Philadelphia, this image that is identical to the one in this news article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Photographs by Stuart Sevastos[edit]

Hello, I'm fairly unfamiliar with Commons, so I don't know if I'm posting this in the right place. I noticed that Flickr user Stuart Sevastos has changed the licensing of his photos from Some Rights Reserved to All Rights Reserved. There are 1,248 photos by him on here, at Category:Photographs by Stuart Sevastos. Thought I'd let you know. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Free licenses are irrevocable, and we have a review process to insure that the license was OK at the time of uploading. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Irrevocable? Wow, that's good to know. That user has a lot of great photos. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright nature of flags/other political body works that derive from Coat of Arms[edit]

At en.wiki an issue of whether a flag that consists of a very simple background (Solid color) and the country's coat of arms, presently tagged non-free, can be replaced with a free equivalent, based on the same concept that a coat of arms that derives from a blazon text description can always be remade as a free version.

The specific case is this, and we have verified that the "eagle with tower crown" idea is the blazon for the region. Clearly the seal should be a free image, but the issue becomes this flag. The way that I see it, the blazon/coat of arms freeness aspect stops there. For the flag, the region has chosen what I call its "preferred embodiment" of the blazon into a specific graphical version of the coat of arms to be used on the flag, and as such, as that coat of arms has the copyright protection of the designer/artist, the flag retains that copyright protection. We cannot, for example, recreate the flag as a free image by taking a freely made version of the coat of arms and slapping that on the blue background.

We have noticed there's a few images on commons that would appear to counter this last sentence (eg File:Flag_of_Tuscany.svg is a freely made version based on the free coat of arms image), so we'd like to get clarification from those that know about how this would work - are flags considered part of the heraldic info like coat of arms? --Masem (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

24 bottle&can display[edit]

Can the copyrighted elements on this photo be considered de minimis? Each of them is only one in 24, but the whole photo is barely showing anything else than these 24 assorted bottles and cans. -- Tuválkin 23:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really look de minimis to me as the bottles and cans are the focus of the photograph and some of the non-free illustrations are quite obvious, even though they are small. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I post images (taken during WWII) from negatives inherited from my father?[edit]

I have several hundred negatives made during WWII aboard my father's ship. The images were not made as part of "the duties" of the crew. These negatives have been in my fathers possession since 1945. He is deceased and I am the owner of the negatives.

I am writing an article about his ship and want to use several of the images of the ship and crew. I have been told at the Wikipedia Teahouse they may not be used as possession of the negatives does not necessarily constitute a transfer of the copyright. These images were freely shared by the crew members during and after the war. There are some great images and it would be a shame to keep them "under wraps". Since they are now over 70 years old, is there any chance they are in the public domain, no longer subject to copyright and able to be uploaded to the Commons?

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

Emerdog (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the answer is not a clear one, when you were told that "possession of the negatives does not necessarily constitute a transfer of the copyright" that is indeed correct, copyright in each image most likely rests in the person who pressed the shutter on the camera. Question : were any of the images taken by your father and if so can you show that they were (for example due to the nature or format of the negatives) ? if the answer is yes to both of them it may be possible to use those images, if for example you can show they were left to you in your father's will or all those who were beneficiaries in the will agree to their release. LGA talkedits 05:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to release the images as a heir under a CC 3.0 license, you can use this template: Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs Please don't forget the categories when uploading. :) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments and suggestions. Unfortunately, my father did not take these images and never held the "copyright". I don't think the crew would have thought much about such things during the war as they took and shared images. I recollect that most of the images were said to have been taken by one crewman who, last I knew, was living in California. If he can acknowledge taking the photographs and is willing to allow their upload, would that suffice?

If so, what evidence of this permission would be needed? Thanks again for your assistance.

Emerdog (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Normally, an e-mail to OTRS in which the photographer asserts ownership of the rights and agrees to release them under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. Once they are satisfied of the author’s identity (any personal or contact info remains private) and acceptability of the terms, they will issue a “ticket” certifying the same and which is added to the description pages of the files it covers.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Certainly if you can get the photographer to give us a free license, that is by far best. There is another possibility, although it is a stretch. You say, "These images were freely shared by the crew members" -- by how many crew members? How many prints do you think were made? It is possible that the distribution was wide enough so that it would constitute "publication" as that term is used under the old copyright act. Since there was almost certainly no copyright notice attached, if they were published, then they are PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my opinion, based on many discussions around WWII photography and copyright—being in UK active service during WWII, it is irrelevant whether '"the duties" of the crew' were to take the photographs or not. All photographs taken were automatically the property of the Ministry of Information (the MoI had very wide powers to automatically claim property during war time, especially anything with possible military intelligence). The photographs are considered to be public domain as Crown Copyright has since expired (after the MoI was disestablished it assets were retained by the Crown). Further, as Crown Copyright applies to the date of creation rather than publication, whether they were ever published or not is not relevant to their copyright status. If photographs were taken by civilians or foreign military, then other considerations apply. -- (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your thoughtful comments. I will reach out and see if I can find any surviving crew member (they are all in their late 80's) who can claim ownership of one or more of the images. There is a chance this is still possible. More to your last point, James, I can say that every surviving crew member I have contacted (around 8-10) has had most of these images in their possession, depending on when they arrived on the ship and when they left. I know the only image of the ship that may exist was in possession of all the crew members I contacted. I will also ask what the crew's policy was with regards to pictures taken on board ship. I believe copies would have been made available to any interested party. The crew was around 70 men. What is the magic number and who decides this?

Fæ, unfortunately this ship was a United States Naval Vessel. I am not sure if UK policy would apply.

Emerdog (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c01B.html is a summary of the court cases around the issue of publication. To quote from one of them, White v. Kimmel, "a limited publication which communicates the contents of a manuscript to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale, is considered a "limited publication," which does not result in loss of the author's common-law right to his manuscript; but that the circulation must be restricted both as to persons and purpose, or it can not be called a private or limited publication." There's no numbers, but if they really were distributed to any interested party and that many copies were made, I'd be willing to go with it being a general publication. There's just no case that's really close, because these things rarely get adjudicated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Bone Clones[edit]

I want to upload images to a wikipedia page but my images keep being deleted. I read through the copyright agreement but still am very confused about it. The images I want to add are from Bone Clones: http://www.boneclones.com/

An example of one of the images I would like to add is http://www.boneclones.com/BCH-808.htm

I did not find an author for this image, so I would guess listing "http://www.boneclones.com/" as the author would be sufficent?

I did find copyright info here http://www.boneclones.com/boneclone_copyright.htm

Would this be enough to upload images? Thanks for any help, I am still learning the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtabencki (talk • contribs)

I think it is clear enough: "The material on this site is copyrighted and is protected by world wide copyright laws and treaty provisions. It may not be copied, reproduced, modified, published, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, without the prior written permission of Bone Clones, Inc."
So you need a permission from Bone Clones to release images under a free license. I don't expect you to get one, but you are free to ask. Just in case you succeed, the procedure for sending the permission is here: COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on 19th-century copies of PD-art[edit]

Hi, I asked a question here about a file that has recently been deleted. Could I get an answer pls? Thx Jane023 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally, if it is art, even very simple, there is a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes maybe for mere mortals, but in the case of artists I don't think you can call their student assignments art, and in fact it is somewhat insulting to their art to imply that it is by claiming copyright. Or am I thinking in the wrong way about the concept of what art is? Jane023 (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably. ;oD See Category:Gene Davis and Category:Marcel Duchamp's fontaine. This is considered art by many... Yann (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The law avoids such questions. Even simple sketches are going to attract copyright, because of their originality, and courts really don't want to argue about what is art.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)