Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

  Welcome to Wikimedia 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 ↓
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. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

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
Commons discussion pages (index)

  • Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Restarting the discussion[edit]

Link to earlier part of this discussion

I noticed that @Jkadavoor: marked this for archiving, but I'd rather we tried to kickstart the discussion again, because these changes are (potentially) important: they impact how we present information about reuse to millions of people, on millions of pieces of content. In particular, they impact how we present information to unskilled reusers - the people who we'd really like to (1) use more of our content and (2) comply more with our license. That's too important to let this discussion go away. So maybe the right question is: does anyone *object* to @Multichill:, WMF, and others creating a more fleshed-out mockup based on @MGalloway (WMF): 's mockups above? —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging all early participants to check any disagreement on using the new wordings ("Option 3/ 6") with the new layout by MGalloway_(WMF). @ChrisiPK, Saffron Blaze, FDMS4:, @El Grafo, , Dereckson:, @Jarekt, Gazebo, Kaldari:, @Stefan4, Colin, Graphium:... Jee 07:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Luis Villa (WMF); and no oppose from my side. :) Jee 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No objections from me, too. I fully agree that it's very important that "unskilled reusers" will be enabled to comply with our license(s) as intuitively as possible. People just don't read lengthy terms; you can tell them a thousand times to read the actual license, they won't... so the big challenge is to create a summary that is on the one hand very compact, but on the other hand precise enough to make license-compliant reuse more likely. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No objections, just one Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Is the "must provide a link to the license" a new thing of the CC-4.0 or has that always been there? If it's new, we may need different wordings for different versions? --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @El Grafo: It is a requirement from version 1.0 onward. Jee 09:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The proposed licence templates do not link to the licence itself but to CC's simplified explanation of the licence. Is this compliant with the licence. Instead of linking to the licence, you can satisfy the requirement by including a copy of the licence, but maybe the template shouldn't mention that as the template otherwise risks being too long. Several of the suggestions already seem to be too long. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
      • @Stefan4: Option 6 links to legalcode; so I'm striking off Option 3. The new layout has a collapsible "read more" feature; so we can expand the text if required. Do you have any additions to the proposed text? Jee 16:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC) We already provided several links to CC FAQs to explain the brief wording in detail. For example, CreativeCommonsWiki:License_Versions#Detailed_attribution_comparison_chart well explains every attribution parameter in detail. Jee 16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it is OK to link to the summary rather than the legalcode; you're right that a literal reading of the license probably requires pointing to the legal code, but I've never seen that done in the wild, even by CC themselves. (See, for example, the suggested links in this attribution guide from CC Australia.)—Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Luis Villa (WMF): It may be legally OK to link to the summary; but there is a difference in our perspective. In all other sites (like Flickr), they give a simple notice stating "this media is CC XX license and linking to the deed. But in our case, we are not mentioning any think near the usage; just hyper-linking to the "file page" where we state the license and terms of use. It will add one more layer of complexity, keeping the actual license one more step away. That's why we prefer to provide a summary of the license there (in the file page). Since this summary (license tag) is almost exact duplicate of the CC deed, linking it again to the deed (which again linking to the license code) is very redundant and useless (as Colin stated earlier). Jee 14:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. All of my work is PD, but I do have to use another license when that is what I am updating, so my preference is to make it shorter than the current version, not longer. A link can be used for details, but taking up more real estate on every image page is not a good idea. Delphi234 (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think May's mockups (above) can be very small/slim. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe I should have asked Jee to hide the first round of options :) A reminder that May posted some proposals, which I think reflect some thinking on how to do this in a way that is both cleaner and more informative. Copied them in-line here for reference. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
“I have some initial thoughts and mock-ups to illustrate. Thanks for being so patient! Wikimania prep has been taking up pretty much all my time. Here
is an attempt to connect the usage and terms more than we previously did, by stating in one place and sentence "Under this license terms*, you are free to…:" and then a list of things you're free to do and what you must do after, which is to attribute and sharealike. But I began by questioning why we care about CC license banner and the purpose of the license. Because people tend to be unaware of their boundaries, a CC license is there to protect the work of the creator and the fair usage of the user of the work. Since CC license permits users to do a lot of things (which they already have no problems with) so long as they are in compliant with license. I thought it was more important for users to know know what they must do if they choose to use the work, because without following terms, they risk getting in trouble. Here
, I made the entire banner look like a single important message with a very clear hierarchy of info, as if saying: Attribute and Sharealike and you'll be fine. Same thing here
, just with different language that's more actionable, "You are free to share & adapt…as long as you…Give attribution, Share Again." I've moved around some sentences here and there but don't claim to for them to be more appropriate for legal purposes, but is what I think could be more understandable. A more condensed version could look like this
. On a side note, I really like how The Noun Project has done to educate icon downloaders to properly attribute the author. When you click on the Download button, you are required to agree to attribute the author (3.0). Once downloaded, you are directed to a page where you get pretty specific instructions on where to attribute the author depending on popular medium usages. We should do something similar!MGalloway (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)”
  • @MGalloway (WMF), LuisV (WMF): Do you need any further comments on this topic? Otherwise we can ask a crat to close it. I see no opposes now, and this discussion is running for a long-while. :) Jee 16:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can close this. Do we have anyone to implement the outcome of this RfC? --Dschwen (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Implementing the accepted proposal[edit]

Looks like we have to work on the following items:

  1. Edit Template:Cc-by-sa-layout and Template:Cc-by-layout
  2. Add translation strings for 'No additional restrictions and the Additional Details box.
  3. Change the existing translation strings.

I suggest we start with the last point, then we request the additional translations, then we update the layout. --Dschwen (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification sought: who owns copyright for retouched images?[edit]

I'd like to see some clarification (and perhaps even changes to guideline pages for everyone's benefit) regarding ownership and copyright of retouched/modified images. I've seen editors claim {{own}}, introduce new CC licenses, and/or list themselves as author for uploading crops or color-manipulated versions of existing CC-licensed works, which I feel is intellectually dishonest (cropping is neither original work nor derivative) and unduly assumes credit for sometimes trivial edits. I try to replace such "ownership" with {{retouched}}, leaving the original creator as author and crediting the new edits in the template, and using the original license. Is there anywhere that discusses how much derivation/retouching is required to claim ownership? I thought Commons:Threshold of originality would offer clarification, but it seems only to discuss PD issues, which can obviate attribution and authorship. Commons:Derivative works briefly defines Derivative works, but mainly deals with photographs of 3D works rather than modifications of existing, free 2D images. As some examples: File:Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (colorized).jpg is a colorized version of File:Catherine Elizabeth Middleton.jpg. I feel that both images should retain the copyright and authorship of the original photographer, with colorization credited in {{retouched}}. Others may argue that colorization creates a "new, creatively original work". A good centralized Commons page discussing how and when new authorship/copyright is warranted would be most welcome. -Animalparty (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Claiming authorship on this image is mistaken, at best, since the edits are relatively minor. I've left a message at the user's talk page. I'm not an expert, but have read what "guidelines" on here that I can find, and agree with you that it is not always remotely clear. In general, seems best to err on the side of an excess of caution, and give credit to the original, even if it is under free license. --Gaff (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'd just like to clarify that I'm not singling out any specific examples or users here, nor wish to discuss any on an individual basis (at least not in this thread). I'm seeking more overarching guidelines or consensus (legal, rules-of-thumb, "best practices", or otherwise) that can accommodate or inform all types of modifications. Animalparty (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that colorizing an image does not establish ownership. I didn't intend to mark it as my own work, I simply rushed through the upload. I've since gone and restored the copyright information from the source image to the colorized version. It seems like a fairly clear cut answer to me, because the original license specified that permission was granted to "remix" the image, so long as the author was properly attributed. I fail to see how colorizing would not constitute a "remix".
There is a question, however about public domain images and colorization. In the past, I may have colorized public domain images and listed them as my own work, but only when I could not determine the original authorship.
My opinion on the subject is that all but the simplest of colorized works represents dual authorship, due to the difficulty in reproducing lifelike colors. However, as I'm here to contribute to Wikipedia, and not to attempt to forward my own views or engage in self-aggrandizement, it seems best to me to attribute only the original author, and allow the file log to stand as testament to my contributions. That, to me, seems the best route for Wikimedia Commons, as well. It does not fail to credit an artist who spent hours painstakingly colorizing a work, nor does it steal credit for the original work. MjolnirPants (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, when I update pages for some reason, I keep the original author, and add "modified by 'other user'" (or similar) in the same line. Or I use |other_versions={{derived from|example.jpg}}. In the example here that info was in the |description=, also okay. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Legally speaking in the US, colorizing a static image is not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
{{infosplit}} exists for the purpose of separating information about the original as opposed to a derivative. It's vastly underused. Revent (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comments. It seems like a "best practices" guideline or essay does not exist yet on commons, so I've started a very rough draft of one at User:Animalparty/commons attribution, and all are welcome to contribute or discuss. I am not well versed in legal issues or copyright law, and any links to relevant law, Wikimedia guidelines, or other resources would be most appreciated. @MjolnirPants:, @Gaff:, @Be..anyone:, @Prosfilaes: @Revent:

It seems this is related to Commons:Adaptation and Collection. Jee 06:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A question about contributing the work of students in my class.[edit]

Hi- I teach physics classes through Wikiversity, and am acutely aware of the dearth of pedagogical physics diagrams. It occurred to me that one remedy is to have students make and post drawings on (this) commons. A good example of this is an image I posted on Wikiversity: v:File:Student_ballistic_pendulum.jpg. The quality is low, but it was the best in that day's class. And, it is the best open source image of a ballistic pendulum that I know about. My idea is to challenge future students to make better drawings and then do a replacement (thus not polluting name-space).

I did this on Wikiversity because I don't know the propriety of using commons for this purpose. I would prefer to use commons because it is quicker and more convenient for me to situate all my contributed images on one platform. I thought of the following protocol and wondered if it is legitimate on (this) commons:

  1. Students are first encouraged to register on commons and contribute under their own accounts.
  2. Students have the option of having me, the instructor, contribute, always with the understanding that a better diagram will eventually replace the original one (at the same namespace file location).
  3. Students will sign a release form for me to keep in my records. In addition, they may sign the actual drawing (in a corner as an artist would sign a painting).

Or, would you prefer that I use Wikiversity for these "drawing contests"? --Guy vandegrift (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that even in this era of computer-generated graphics, the ability to make a hand-drawn diagram remains a useful skill. As this drawing of the ballistic pendulum will improve over the years (as students draw better versions), Wikipedia and Wikiversity authors will have the option of inserting a hand-drawn diagram, or (probably) an svg copy of it.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Guy vandegrift: That sounds like a great idea! Educational images are always welcome on Commons. I suspect that, since these would be an example of student work, not just of the subjects of the works, they may stay on Commons even after better versions become available, since they serve the additional educational purpose of illustrating the kind/quality of work created by students. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Re: Copyright: If you could forward a copy of the copyright releases to from your university email account, that would probably be the best (though not only) way to verify the copyright status of the images. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I find it easier to have the student write the release form right on the sketch. When we get a really good one, we can document it more carefully. Is that all right? --Guy vandegrift (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

about copyright of two antique images[edit]

File:松石間意琴腹.jpg and File:松石間意琴面.jpg, It is a Chinese intrument Guqin made in c.1120. I can not see if these pictures (flat pictures showing only one side of the object) meet any threshold of originality, though the object itself should be a 3D work. I am using {{PD-scan}} and wondering if it is correct.--淺藍雪 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is OK. These are not 2D works, like a painting. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Rather big to pull a {{PD-scan}}, some folks here even delete flat scans of coins. (IMNSHO misguided folks, but that's another story.) –Be..anyone (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per en:Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_25#Photographs_of_ancient_coins, the WMF general counsel's opinion from a number of years ago recommended deleting photographs of coins. So, we generally act accordingly -- if something can amount to a slavish copy (such as a photo of a 2D painting) then there may be an additional copyright, but a photo of a 3-D object leaves some of the copyrightable aspects of a photograph open. If you point a coin on a flatbed scanner, that may be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
eh...seems the rule is not really clear. So shall I nominate them for deletion, or according to Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag, keep them here as they are "purely mechanical scan" until there is "a complaint from the person who worked on the image and who can establish that a significant level of personal creative input did in fact go into the digital enhancements."?--淺藍雪 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Treating these images as {{PD-scan}} or {{PD-art}} seems dubious, given that the surface itself of the front part of the depicted instruments is curved (i.e., 3D) and as Yann mentioned, the instruments are not the same as a 2D work. From looking at the images, there is a sense of lighter and darker areas; File:松石間意琴腹.jpg is more illuminated in the upper left and File:松石間意琴面.jpg is considerably more illuminated near the top. It would be worth considering as to whether the positioning of lighting for the photographing of the instruments could be creative input and thus copyrightable. --Gazebo (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Book covers using PD artworks[edit]

I've read over Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Book covers, including the exceptions under which such covers are suitable for upload to Commons. Does this pertain to covers with simple elements and the use of PD art as the sole components of the cover? I am specifically asking about the file Rubare ai ricchi non è peccato.jpg I recently uploaded to English Wikipedia, which uses a portion of the public domain artwork File:Fonteghetto della farina, Canaletto, circa 1730.jpg created in 1730, and plain text to denote the author, book's title, and publisher. Is this file acceptable on Commons? Mindmatrix 00:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's fine for the U.S. I'm not sure if Italy has a typographical arrangement copyright but I'd guess it's OK there too (and even those copyrights are for something more involved than a book cover I'd guess). It can be possible for works to have a "selection and arrangement" copyright even if it solely uses PD images (say perhaps a collage of PD paintings) but stuff like that does not rise to that kind of a copyright. Titles and names are not copyrightable, in most places, and this is just centered text. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. I've uploaded a copy to Commons and tagged it as {{PD-ineligible}}, and I suppose if anyone objects, they can nominate it for deletion. Mindmatrix 17:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of safety signs and symbols?[edit]

I was just wondering if anyone knew the copyright status of safety symbols and signs.

Such as the symbols used on the following pages:

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatteredankle (talk • contribs) 11:21, 20 January 2015‎ (UTC)

It depends on the relevant jurisdictions, the complexity of the symbols, when they were created, and to what extent they were based on older designs. For specific details for each image, click on them to see their individual file descriptions. Some of them are non-free and therefore not hosted here on Commons. LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments about an image[edit]

Hi all, I was thinking about uploading the 3GPP logo. Before doing it I'd like to get some feedback. I think it's simple enough not to be copyright-eligible, but I'd rather get some feedback before uploading it. Best regards and many thanks into advance --Discasto talk | contr. | analysis 17:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Before you ignore their rules better read what they say, notably they have an EPS that might be better than JPG if you can convert it to something allowed here. The LTE logo is already here (as JPG). The logo isn't too simple, 3GPP is drawn in some peculiar way not covered by "plain text". If it's non-free better upload it to Wikipedia. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I actually might be a bit hesitant to upload that. The particular shape of the radio waves (or whatever they are) below the G might exceed PD-shape, even if the general idea of those is common. Not positive on the arrangement of the main letters, either -- slight chance of a copyright there, though less likely. That's one which is right on the borderline for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, the 3PP is headquartered in France, so we might consider that as the country of origin, and France isn't exactly known for having a particularly high threshold of originality. LX (talk, contribs) 09:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issue[edit]

Something bad happened with this photo. I tried to ask Fastily for clarification, but recieved chaotic response. The description actually DID have a link to actress' blog but it WASN'T the picture, it was link to some different stuff (maybe main page maybe different low-quality image). So i want to clarify the situation: can administrator delete image just because of wrong descriprion or suspicion without any reason? --Алый Король (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File descriptions must contain correct information about the file's source, authorship and licensing. If those details are wrong, that is a reason for deletion. Administrators may not delete files without any reason, but it doesn't look like that's the case here. There is a reason provided in the deletion log, which you can see if you click the file name above. If you disagree with that reason, you can request undeletion. LX (talk, contribs) 10:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That file contained right information. The author is uploader, only the name of file wasn't correct and uploader posted link to actress blog (I don't know for which reason, but it caused a big problem). And now we have the same problem with the another photo of that uploader. Someone (I believe it's registered user who doesn't want to reveal his identity) post template No permission since. Reason? The other photo of Elly Akira uploaded by User:Yamamotomasahiro is deleted because of copyvio Absolute nonsense. It means that I can request OTRS-permission for ANY photo on Commons uploaded by author and after 7 days this photo will be deleted?--Алый Король (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't comment on the deleted file, because I can't see that. You asked if an administrator can delete an image if the file description is incorrect, and I answered that.
Usually if there are concerns with one file of a passing contributor with a small number of uploads, there will be concerns with the other ones as well. If you disagree with the tagging, you can convert it to a regular deletion nomination to invite wider discussion. LX (talk, contribs) 19:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Would these London Underground posters be a case of PD-text or PD-textlogo?[edit]

Would either of the following two London Underground posters be a case of {{PD-text}} or {{PD-textlogo}}?

--Gazebo (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the British threshold of originality is ridiculuously low. There is also COM:CRT#Typographical copyright to consider. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
These are just text with a very standard font. So yes. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not a correct argument. w:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg is just text with a very standard font, but it is still not {{PD-textlogo}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The E is not a standard font. And I think that extrapolating this case is dangerous. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The only non-standard thing about the E is that the bar extends beyond the stem. The London Underground posters are set in Johnston, which was specifically commissioned for that purpose. The diamond-shaped tittle (a later addition to the typeface) is arguably as original as that extended bar (which is to say not very original at all, but that doesn't change what the man in the wig decided). LX (talk, contribs) 20:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Since File:Johnston 2.png is published here under a free license, you can difficultly argue that these have a copyright. As I said, extrapolating over the EDGE case is a dangerous exercise, which would not sustain any criticism. I could easily find 10 counter-examples, i.e. public domain works with the same level of complexity. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Scans of Historical Manuscripts from Cambridge Digital Library[edit]

In 2007 there has been a discussion on COM:HD on whether or not licensing scans and photographs of historical manuscripts (such as Newton's Principia Mathematica) by Cambridge Digital Library under CC-BY-NC-3.0 is Copyright misuse. In that discussion, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was mentioned as a similar case which had the following court ruling[1]:

“[1] On November 13, 1998, this Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's copyright infringement claim on the alternative grounds that the allegedly infringed works -- color transparencies of paintings which themselves are in the public domain -- were not original and therefore not permissible subjects of valid copyright and, in any case, were not infringed. [n1] It applied United Kingdom law in determining whether plaintiff's transparencies were copyrightable. [n2] The Court noted, however, that it would have reached the same result under United States law. [n3]”

Cory Doctorow also wrote a blog post about the topic in 2011 (mentioning National Portrait Gallery vs. WMF) and writes[2]:

“Sadly, these images are licensed under CC noncommercial, which means that Cambridge is asserting a copyright over these ancient manuscripts. UK law does make some provision for asserting a copyright in photos of public domain works, though to do so certainly runs contrary to the ethic of scholarship that the Cambridge name evokes. However, readers in the USA should know that these images are not in copyright there, and they could be downloaded and reused in any way, in keeping with the principle of a robust public domain.”

Consdering that that there are already a number of such works from Cambridge Digital Library uploaded as PD-scan, it seems needed to revisit the issue.

The question is how should Commons community interpret Erik Möller's closing remarks in his blog post regarding NPG vs. WMF? Should there be templates like Template:SourceNPGLondon for every similar institution which digitizes PD works and claims Copyright over them?

What are your views on this? --Shervinafshar (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Good pointer, but does not answer my question regarding content from Cambridge Digital Library. Is it acceptable to download this image from CDL, remove the copyright notice which is added to the image and upload it to Commons as PD-scan (like File:Benedictional of Robert de Clercq.jpg)? --Shervinafshar (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Yann (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Video of rock concert[edit]

Hello! I am wondering if a short clip of a rock concert can be uploaded without sound? I know that a video cannot contain copyrighted audio, so of course it is not ok with sound. If the audio is removed, can a 10 second clip be uploaded to illustrate how a rock singer moves on stage? Just wondering. Thank you! Teemeah (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Subject to what I mention in the next sentence, I don't see why not if the person who recorded the video (and who thus owns the copyright in it) freely licenses it. Note, though, that in some jurisdictions people can assert performers' rights over their performances. I'm not sure what our policy is on recognizing such rights, since they are strictly speaking not a form of copyright. "Commons:Non-copyright restrictions" doesn't mention them. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Smuconlaw: I think we don't consider performing rights, as there are a lot of videos of orchestra performances, too, performing already public domain pieces of music. And it's not a full concert, 10 seconds of movement on stage (not really "performance"). (I shot the video) Teemeah (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Under copyright law, protection of performances is no different to protection of sound recordings, and we do not accept non-free sound recordings as far as I know. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This is without sound. Teemeah (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that sound recordings and performances are treated identically under copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan4: Then how can Category:Videos of music exist at all? Teemeah (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Under Swedish copyright law, you need permission from the "performing artist" in order to make a sound or video recording of a performance of a work, if the performance was made less than 50 years ago. Otherwise, you may neither create the recording nor distribute copies of it. If a singer merely is standing on a scene while singing, then I am not sure if his standing there has anything to do with him performing the work, so maybe only sound recordings are protected in that situation. A work is something which meets certain quality requirements, so a film of some people who are merely walking along a street would not count as a video recording of a performance as written instructions on how to walk along a street doesn't meet those quality requirements. A video recording of a play at a theatre is more likely to be a problem, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Generally a video without sound does not constitute a derivative of a concert, which is essentially music. That may be different for a dance performance. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like we may need to have a wider discussion about whether the Commons should take account of performers' rights. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Is imagery from press a sort of 'daily news or details of current events that constitue regular press information' and that is why free?[edit]

Two images (File:Damaged monument at Savur-Mohyla.jpg, File:Ukrainian paratroopers at Savur-Mohyla.jpg) were uploaded and tagged with PD-UA-exempt (a) daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information. In my opinion regular press information are facts, names, figures but not an imagery. But User:RGloucester supports tagging photos from press with 'regular press information' and so being valid for Commons. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no FoP in Ukraine, so those are not really good for Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Not good. Yann (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But the question was about tagging; this topic is a possible precedent as everybody can claim every image from press a 'regular press information' and valid to upload at Commons. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I highly doubt there is no copyright on photographic snapshots like that. That clause would seem to be more for the factual details that comprise reporting of current events and the like. If those photos were not taken by the uploader they should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This is really something a lawyer versed in Ukrainian copyright law should answer. But I also expect that your interpretation is correct, Bogomolov.PL. --Sebari (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Pigna e aghi.svg[edit]

I have uploaded this image. It has been taken from a copyrighted book (Gli alberi d'Italia, 1973), nevertheless it is a minimal detail, it has been simplified, rotated, and changed perspective. Is it OK for Commons? I have been warned that could be not suitable. I was conscious there could be some problems, but I decided to upload it anyway. Feel free to delete it if it is against the site copyright policy.--Carnby (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)