Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 too 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)

Plain vanilla copyvios[edit]

I'm sure the answer to this utterly simple question is in the Help pages, but I couldn't find it so here goes. I keep coming across files in Commons, downloaded from websites, which were either copyrighted or had no copyright info, and the uploader claims it as "Own work". I assume this should be tagged as a copyvio, but it's not clear to me from the discussion on Commons:Deletion policy whether this type should be tagged for Regular or Speedy Deletion. Thanks for your help. --Chetvorno (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just give us the username or some of these filenames and we'll have a look. --Denniss (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The Constant Escapement.png is an example. It appears on these copyrighted magazine pages: 1, 2 --Chetvorno (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Double-slit experiment results Tanamura 2.jpg This file says "Provided with kind permission of Dr. Tonomura". Commons requires an email release from Dr. Tonomura, doesn't it? So I should tag it "NPD", right? --Chetvorno (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Solvil&Titusadv.jpg This doesn't give a source but says it is from a 1940s advertising campaign in a magazine, but has a PD license. --Chetvorno (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
File:The Constant Escapement.png does not appear on either of the magazine pages you link to (although similar images do). It's probably not a copyvio but an original drawing. File:Double-slit experiment results Tanamura 2.jpg is old enough that it may pre-date the requirement for having a permission email on file with OTRS. File:Solvil&Titusadv.jpg is problematic: maybe it was first published in the US and copyright wasn't renewed, maybe it wasn't, but there's not enough information to decide one way or the other. --Carnildo (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If you're not sure, go with a normal DR. Speedy DRs are for obvious cases. Although "obvious" in that context may not be defined in detail, personally I'd say that a Speedy DR is proper when: 1. You have done some research about the image, and sometimes about the uploader's upload history and what it tells about his/her credibility, and 2. You provide relevant evidence in your request (link or links to the legitimate original image in its context, or to as close as possible to the original, or a link to an older and/or better version of the image, and/or explanations), and 3. that evidence leads almost certainly to the conclusion that the upload is a copyright violation. If there's a reasonable chance that the uploader is the legitimate author of the image, don't request a speedy. Getting used to the best practices of tagging is almost an art.
Your first example (File:The Constant Escapement.png) is not a candidate for a speedy DR (if it's a candidate for a DR at all). You have done research but the evidence provided is not adequate to support a conclusion of copyright violation. The image published in the magazines you linked is obviously not the same image. A search by image from the Commons file returns only newer and smaller versions. Ergo, the case is not obvious and needs to be discussed. We can note that the other files uploaded by the same user show photographs that are found on the company's website [4], which would normally hint at copyvio, but strangely the Commons user uploaded larger resolution versions. The user has contributed a small number of files on Commons and contributed really to only one article on Wikipédia, whichs doesn't tell us much. This is a type of situation where, IMHO, a good first step normally would be to contact the uploader on his talk page, ask him about the origin of the images and see what he has to say about it. But his last contribution was in July 2013, so that may not give a result. Another good option in this type of situation can be to bring the issue here on C:Vp/C for informal discussion and see what other users think about it. Or you can proceed with a normal DR.
Your third example (File:Solvil&Titusadv.jpg) can be tagged with Subst:NSD. The absence of source doesn't allow other users to check the relevant facts such as country and date of publication and the validity of the uploader's statements about the date and the unspecific PD-US claim. For more caution, you can do some research, which can hint either to a positive or negative conclusion. For example, this advertisement is offered on e-bay by someone who says it was from a 1965 magazine in Switzerland. So, you could go with a DR, but this case is a good candidate for the NSD tag. The other uploads by the same user should also be examined. Many don't have sources and/or provide insufficient evidence for checking the PD claims. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't look closely enough at File:The Constant Escapement.png. It does seem to be more or less a tracing of the copyrighted image on the pages I gave, though. So it is not close enough to the original to make it a derivative work? --Chetvorno (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a derivative of the other image. Some artistic choices are different in the two images. You start from the multiple hypothesis that one image is derived from the other, that the magazine image is the original and that the Commons image is a copy, but that's not obvious. They could have been drawn independently by the company's illustrator(s) to illustrate the mechanism. Or both images could be independently derived from another drawing. Anyway, the whole situation of this user's uploads was quite puzzling and felt like the user could be someone from the company who might either have actually created the images himself, or who might be having access and be using the company's images legitimately. So, I did a little more research. It turns out that it is easy to find that someone with a real name resembling the uploader's pseudonym was in the employment of the watch company Girard-Perregaux in the communications department from February 2013 to July 2013 (coincidentally exactly the same time frame when the user contributed to the Wikimedia sites on that company's article). Almost certainly the same person, given all the context, although he did not disclose his relationship with the company. So, this type of contributions to Wikimedia where a user actually does underground promotional marketing work poses other types of problems, but not necessarily of copyright violation if the images were used with the consent of the company. I'm guessing that the images were probably not his own work, but the work of photographers and illustrators hired by the company. It's not certain if he had the permission to offer the free license. In this situation, a normal DR would seem in order. The files should probably be deleted in the absence of a clear license from the company through OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
As a related example, I uploaded File:Giovanni Di Dondi clock.png, a modern pen and ink tracing of a 1364 manuscript illustration shown here, because I believed it was a derivative of the PD original. Should this be deleted? --Chetvorno (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't see that flickr link, so I can't say, but "derivative of the PD original" is not helpful; the classic example is a translation, where a new translation of Plato will get a new copyright. In the US, there's a court case that ruled that taking a public domain widescreen movie and making a pan-and-scan version where it fit an old 4:3 TV produced a copyrightable work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If you suspect that a file may be in violation of Commons rules, but you are uncertain about exactly what the rules say, then it is much safer to start a deletion discussion than using a speedy deletion template. Deletion discussions are seen by more people, and there is a higher chance that the image will be saved, should your rationale be wrong. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    I recently came across a file that seemed an obvious copyright violation and I found it hard to figure out the right way to report it. I finally got to the part of our Commons:Deletion policy which says "The speedy deletion tag { {copyvio} } is for obvious copyright violations." I know what to do with that information, but someone who is new here, particularly someone who finds their work on Commons without permission, would find that complete gibberish. I think Commons need a clear help page on reporting possible copyright violations. (And if that already exists, it needs to be easier to find.)--agr (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Commons:Deletion policy also known as COM:D is the page you seek? Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote. That policy is written for experienced editors and unlikely to help someone new.--agr (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If I go to a file information page without being logged in, then I see a toolbar to the left with several options: "Main page", "Welcome", "Community portal" et cetera. At the bottom, it says "Nominate for deletion". A new editor should click on "Nominate for deletion" and type in the deletion rationale. This will create a deletion discussion. If a user is a new user, the user is less likely to know COM:D, so a deletion discussion is in my opinion the best option. If the file meets a speedy deletion criterion, an administrator may of course speedily delete the file once the administrator discovers the deletion discussion.
I believe that you see the same links if you are logged in, unless you have enabled extra gadgets or created custom user javascript. When I am logged in, I see a couple of extra links there, because of settings that I have enabled. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That's is much better than COM:D, but I didn't notice it and nothing I encountered in my search mentioned it. The help portal links to COM:D. Also does anyone know what screen you get when you nominate a file for deletion in this way? Does it explain the process and give you a link the the discussion page? Does it tell you to save the link?--agr (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Help:Nominate for deletion? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Written for experienced editors, but at least a place to start editing. And it doesn't indicate what you see after you submit a nomination. Would someone who is nominating a file anyway be up for giving it a try?--agr (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

CC license, no version specified[edit]

I'm wanting to upload some open-access journal articles which are labeled as "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited". So, what version number of CC-BY is that considered? 1.0? 3.0? I'm not clear on the difference in the license version numbers.--Brainy J (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

We could offer reasonable guesses, but certainly the safest answer is that it's their license, so you should ask the clarification from them, not from us. The copyright is owned by the authors of the article, but the license appears to have been chosen by the publisher and apply to all their publications. They have a contact form on their website. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a simple {{Cc-by}} template without explicit version number, but that delivers a warning message... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Teasmade-machines-at-the-Science-Museum-London-UK.jpg and lampshade elements[edit]

In the File:Teasmade-machines-at-the-Science-Museum-London-UK.jpg image, there is a lampshade atop one of the devices on display towards the left. The question is whether the top and bottom parts of the lamp shade could be considered artistic works (and therefore possibly copyright-restricted even though the photo was made available under a free license) as opposed to merely utilitarian. (As a side note, the photo was taken in the UK, but as far as UK FOP applying there would be the question (among other things) as to whether the museum display was meant to be permanent.) --Gazebo (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass manufactured objects put in a row does not have any special copyright beyond that for mass manufactured products (unless it were an art installation, and even that might be debatable). The lampshade has some brocade added at the top and bottom, this comes in standard rolls, so itself is mass produced product as well as the lampshade itself. The Science Museum is free and encourages photographs by visitors, from memory there is not even a free ticket system, you can just wander in. If the photographer has released the photograph, there seems nothing else here to cause concern even if this were a temporary display, pretty much as if it were a public window display without any significant unique creative design elements. -- (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if it is, it's incidental -- the photo is not focusing on the (potentially) copyrightable aspects of the lightshade. It's probably unlikely they would get a copyright on that anyways. Even if they did though, it would be going way too far to give them full derivative right control over all photographs they happen to be in. Similar to how a photograph of a city skyline would be OK regardless if it happened to include copyrightable buildings in a non-FoP country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You would need to identify the source country of the lampshade as different countries have different interpretations of COM:UA. For example, while both the United States and Japan exempt utilitarian objects from copyright, the Japanese definition of "utilitarian" is wider than the U.S. one. For example, the Japanese definition of "utilitarian" includes toys, whereas the U.S. one does not. In other countries, there is no exception for utilitarian objects at all. For example, the Swedish copyright law only exempts semiconductor circuits from copyright, whereas courts frequently rule that other utilitarian objects, such as furniture and clothes, are subject to copyright. There was recently a case where the French supreme court fined Getty Images for posting pictures of rather simple chairs in violation of the copyright of the chairs. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-unpublished[edit]

I was talking to User:J Milburn earlier, and he raised a good point related to this template: copyright tends to expire at the end of the year, and not the beginning of the year. Currently, the template uses the expression its author died before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 70 }};, which gives 1944, which (if we go by the end of the year, as we should) is actually equivalent to 69 years after the death of the creator. As such, shouldn't this be its author died before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 71 }}; which would return the more accurate 1943? The other fields would need to be updated as well (i.e. not 120 but 121). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Died before current year-70 is correct. That's the idea in the word "before". If you wanted to use current year-71, you would have to write died not after current year-71, or died in current year-71 at the latest. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, currently in year 2014, the template should return "author died before 1944", and that's what it does. 1943 would be quite wrong.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Albert Einstein photo by Ferdinand Schmutzer[edit]

Photo 1921
Etching 1921

Bottom line: does the 1921 publication of the etching suffice to establish publication within the terms of the Berne convention of the 1921 photo study it is based on?

The background is that the glass negative for the photo study was discovered in 2001 and purchased by the Austrian National Library (ANL). A query there confirms the photo study was never published previous to 2001. The Commons upload of a print from this negative has consequently been nominated for deletion here. I agree that the image is copyright to ANL until 2027 and thus not PD in Austria, but sharply disagree that it is not PD in the US (expert opinion appreciated).

Of course if the etching establishes publication then the whole issue is resolved. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Prosfilaes also said that ANL didn't buy copyrights in the work, they did not have the legal permission under US law to publish and therefore their publication doesn't count. Then this goes into the pile of unpublished until 2003 and thus PD in the US. That would a nice unexpected turn for us. Yann (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. The copyright situation is plainly complex. I note that at least one gallery is offering prints of these negatives (for 6,000 euros each, serious money), which suggest to me either that the copyright is not vested in ANL or that the works are indeed treated as PD in Austria. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
(Added). This web page fills in the background to the sale. It seems that the entire collection of 3,000 negatives held by the Schmutzer estate (thus not a 'discovery') were purchased by the ANL between 2001 and 2003. The first exhibition of the images was held by the Westlicht gallery (mentioned above in connection with the sale of prints) in 2001. It's likely I suppose that the Einstein print was amongst these, but it's not clear that it was. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever happens with the photos, it was a good idea to upload the etching. If someone has the motivation, it might also be a good thing to upload the two other high resolution reproductions of etchings at the same source freud-museum.at while they're still accessible there, and the smaller reproductions of etchings that Commons doesn't already have from the 20 at ferdinand-schmutzer.com. (If the photos turn out to be free, reproductions of several photos that Commons doesn't already have could also be interesting from various sources, such as anzenbergergallery.com.) -- Asclepias (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, do plan to if someone doesn't get there first (but I believe the Freud estate disputes the copyright on one of these images - will check). I'll also add at Wikipedia:Ferdinand Schmutzer when I have a spare moment (all this copyright drama is very time wasting Face-smile.svg). I doubt the Freud museum itslef will be very gripped by these images being upoloaded, providing there's a link driving traffic to their site. They provided a straight forward high resolution download and the PD status is not in doubt bar one possible image which I only have from memory. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Bugger the copydrama, does anyone recognise the equations on the blackboard behind Bertie? Presumably Schmutzer didn't provide those when he posed Einstein the few hours Einstein made his Vienna visit? Is 'K' perhaps his famed gravitation tensor (hard higher dimensional version of the matrices we learn at school)? Einstein couldn't in fact solve his own equations. It was Willem de Sitter Georges Lemaître (whoops, senior moment, the other Belgian, whomever, *sigh* I think I'll just go upload some in copyright files illegally ...), who first found a solution. It's amusing that Schmutzer changed that into some kind of perspective diagram in his etching - that at least I can cope with. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In the U.S. the Copyright Office says "The inclusion of an unpublished work in another work that is later published results in the publication of the first work to the extent that it is disclosed in the published work." (see §910.04 of Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices). They provide two examples, "Where a preexisting unpublished screenplay is embodied in a motion picture, those elements of the screenplay disclosed in the motion picture are considered to be published at the same time the motion picture is published" and "The publication of copies of a lithograph that reproduce a previously unpublished original oil painting, publishes the oil painting to the extent that it is disclosed in the lithograph." So if the derivative work (i.e the etching) is now public domain in the U.S., then any elements of the underlying work (i.e. the photo) "disclosed" by the etching are now also public domain in the U.S. By extension, if the undisclosed elements are de minimus, then then entire photo can be considered to be in public domain in the U.S. —RP88 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@RP88: Well that's really interesting RP88 (and I also appreciated your comments on the nomination page very much). I did wonder because in the past of course paintings were reproduced by engravings. Long story, but Mary Cassatt's involvement with Edgar Degas probably stems from meeting a mate of his at the Brussels Museum of Fine Arts, where she was studying Rubens and where he had been sent by the French government to copy his paintings. I've got behind here, but shall do the relevant study and emails of enquiry tomorrow. Very grateful. Thanks so much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

General Electric silent light switch, photo copyright issues?[edit]

If a high-resolution photo of this General Electric light switch (from what one understands, the actual switch is a somewhat old "silent operation" mercury switch) was released under a free license, would there be copyright issues with the combination of notations on the top and bottom parts of the switch? --Gazebo (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IANAL, but I don't see anything there that looks copyrightable. Way below COM:TOO, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. That text is too short to be copyrightable, and it contains no creative element. Powers (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Klingon logos[edit]

We have a muddle of a situation that needs central discussion, as piecemeal DRs have reached different conclusions.

In 2009, I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klingon Empire Flag.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klingon-flag.svg, on the grounds that the Klingon logo was too complex to be uncopyrightable. Both requests were denied with a claim that the logo is too simple for copyright protection in the U.S.

Last month, I discovered that the International Space Station Expedition 40 mission patch was originally going to include an outline of the Klingon symbol like this one, but it had to be redesigned "due to copyright concerns". (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-060614a-klingon-star-trek-astronaut-patch.html) Since there were copyright concerns involved, and presumably a lawyer had raised those concerns (causing the design to be rejected), I thought that our Precautionary Principle would require us to also treat the logo as copyrightable.

Pursuant to that, I re-opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klingon-flag.svg. It was deleted per my reasoning, so I proceeded to another DR for the remaining items: Commons:Deletion requests/Klingon insignia. But this one was kept, inexplicably. The reasoning from one "Keep" proponent involved nothing but reference to the 2009 DR that resulted in a "keep", without taking into account my new evidence. The close explanation is "Apparently OK" which is both disingenuous (it's not "apparent" at all) and contrary to our policy (which requires us to delete when there's significant doubt).

If we can here come to a consensus that the copyright concerns that scuttled the mission patch are of no concern to us, then so be it. But we cannot dismiss those concerns lightly, and we should not do so haphazardly.

-- Powers (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • These insignia are arguably comparable to w:File:Prince logo.svg, for which the United States Copyright Office accepted a copyright registration (as VA0000832222). --Stefan4 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
These insignia are arguably comparable to D'ni letters and numbers, for which the United States Copyright Office specifically refused a copyright registration... AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Except that those were refused registration specifically as letters and numbers, because fonts aren't copyrightable, even if it's a fictional script. I don't think the cases are comparable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding more licenses in upload forms[edit]

Hi,

  1. While helping a newbie uploading a old book, I discovered that there is no option for a suitable license in the UploadWizard ({{PD-old-70-1923}}).
  2. In the regular form, there is no option for "released into the public domain" and CC-0 by a third party (these options exist in the UploadWizard).

I think a bit more consistency is needed, and these options should be added. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree those licensing tags are often used but finding them in the maze is difficult for new users. Those tags and maybe some others should be added to the upload wizard imho. Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Added CC-0 to the regular form --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The {{PD-old-70-1923}} license is truly missing in UplaodWizard. @Odder, LX, Jmabel, Jarekt: Do you agree? -- Rillke(q?) 17:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I always assumed the limited number of options was by design. LX (talk, contribs) 18:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've pretty much completely avoided the upload wizard, so I don't have a strong opinion, but if the sequence of questions has already established that the content is third party, then it might be reasonably to ask if it was first published in the U.S. and what year (possibly with "before 1923" as a single choice), then apply this license if the answer is yes. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that current upload wizard does pretty poor job at PD licenses. I even file bugzilla:67327 about it. However it is ward to add one typo of license without all others. At some other point I started cataloing some best-practices for each case and got quite a list, see Commons:Multi-license copyright tags. It would be good to add most of those and probably much more. --Jarekt (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Research needed to find status of photos[edit]

Can someone find the copyright status of these three images? They were tagged with a PD tag that was not applicable to them, but they may be PD for other reasons or they may be still under copyright. I prefer to leave them a chance by asking here instead of nominating them for deletion. They're U.S. photos, so it's likely a matter of knowing if they had a notice or registration and renewal. I'm unfamiliar with this type of research, so I'm asking here if anyone knows how to determine their status.

  • File:Isaac.Asimov01.jpg - Photo by professional photographer Phillip Leonian, circa 1965 (or possibly earlier)1956. It could be assumed that he protected his copyright, but perhaps someone can find, for example, if the photo was used on old copies of books and confirm if it had a copyright notice or not?
  • File:Rockefeller under construction.png - Photo by Hamilton M. Wright for Aerial Explorations, Inc., N.Y., 1932. Could require a check in the records of renewals?
  • File:JosephNWelch.jpg - Photo from NBC Television Network, 1960.

-- Asclepias (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Was Phillip Leonian an employee of New York World Telegram & Sun? If so, it wasn't his copyright, and apparently (the page never comes out and says this) the copyrights and the photographs got dumped on the Library of Congress when the newspaper went belly-up: see http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/coll/130_nyw.html .--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If he wasn't an employee, then we should probably work from the assumption that as a post-1963 work, the photo is copyrighted to him. It's certainly non-trivial to show otherwise. Phillip Leonian is apparently still alive and in his 80s, which probably won't help us at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
He was not an employee of NYWT&S. I didn't want to stretch this section with the background and the previous steps already checked, so I went straight to the remaining questions, but maybe I should have been clearer about it. For our purposes, the items from various provenance in the NYWT&S collection can be broadly classified in three categories:
  • 1. Photos by staff photographers of NYWT&S. The copyrights on those were owned by NYWT&S. They have been made free per the instrument of gift. Browsing the collection, we get used to recognize about fifteen names of staff photographers. The LoC makes it clear in the notice when it is a staff photo and offers it directly in large resolution on the website. We tag those photos with the template NYWT&S. Example 1.
  • 2. Photos from press agencies. The LoC offers some of those photos in large versions with direct notices, Example 2, but sometimes it does not offer a large version and gives a notice that refers, for example, to this or this. Photos in that situation are generally kept on Commons on that basis, as either no notice or not renewed or with the generic PD-US to signify one or the other. Example 3. However, users sometimes put the tag NYWT&S by mistake and it needs to be changed for a suitable Pd-US tag. Also users often upload copies of those photos in larger versions from other sources. The LoC notices can then be useful for information, but those uploads sometimes get disputed, especially if the copy is cropped differently from the version in the LoC collection. Example 4.
  • 3. Photos from other sources, which need more individual research. Uploader also sometimes tag those photos with the tag NYWT&S by mistake and it needs to be removed but it's more difficult to determine the status of those photos. The LoC does not offer copyright guidance but a cautious advice. Sometimes the LoC description has information about the source and "patrons are advised to check for copyright", sometimes it has almost no information and "patrons who wish to show that a reasonable effort was made to determine copyright status should perform a copyright search and retain a record of the search" [5].
The photos in the question at the beginning of this section are in the third category. The Leonian photo had almost no information at the LoC. The history of the Commons description page shows that a Commons user has identified the author from a publication on a book. To reuse your words, "it's non-trivial" to show if it's not copyrighted. Hence my question, in case someone can find more information. (The file went through a deletion request but the closing admin obviously didn't read carefully the LoC information about the statuses of the different categories of items in the collection, as his keep explanation is in direct contradiction with the explanations at the LoC page he linked.) I found a site today that says the photo is from 1956, which seems to make sense. I suppose that could make it easier. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

When can an organisation hold the intellectual property rights?[edit]

Hi there, I recently had a few photo's deleted. The issue mainly arose because I had uploaded the images based on permission from an organisation that provided me with the pictures. Of course, as was pointed out, an organisation can't take pictures. However the individual photographer was a member of the organisation, the photo was taken back in the 60's and no one knows who the individual was anymore - but the images are 'in house', so it is by a member of this spiritual group (here is the deletion request) I have been given a book where the organisation has used the same photo that was deleted as a book cover (cropped version), and the only copyright is to the organisation i.e. there is evidence the organisation have asserted intellectual property rights over photo with no acknowledgement to any original photographer. In these circumstances, would the organisation be allowed to license the photo to be allowed on Wikimedia commons? Thanks heaps for your input. Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If an individual allows an organization to use his/her work for their purposes without attribution, that doesn't necessarily mean that the organization has the right to allow other people to do the same. On the other hand: If the organization declares that they actually are the sole (!) owner of the copyrights and sends a permission via COM:OTRS, that might be enough for our admins to restore the file. --El Grafo (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi El Grafo. Thank you for that. It's more that the individual undertook their work as an agent for the organisation, rather than in a 'personal capacity' and so now the organisation continues to freely use and distribute that work as they wish and have done since the 1960's. Copies are given out at their ashram in India etc. I will try your suggestion for possible resurrection a try - thank you. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft accident : radio transmissions[edit]

In 1961 a Vickers Viscount aircraft (registered TVC) took off from Sydney, Australia with 15 people on board. It crashed less than 10 minutes after take-off with the loss of all on board. The accident was investigated in 1962 by a Board of Accident Inquiry, chaired by a judge. Another User and I have created an article on English Wikipedia about this accident. See Ansett-ANA Flight 325.

The radio transmissions between Air Traffic Control and several aircraft in the vicinity of Sydney at the time of the accident are notable. The only known source for these radio transmissions is the report of the Chairman of the Board of Accident Inquiry. The report is the property of the Commonwealth of Australia. There are two copies of the report in the National Library of Australia. The number of other copies is unknown but presumably very small.

User:Djbcjk has extracted the details of the radio transmissions and the times of these transmissions from the report, and consolidated them in a two-page .pdf file. Following is the sort of information in the file:

1929.26 ATC: TVC, TVC, this is Sydney tower.
1931.50 ATC: [declares Alert Phase of SAR]
2010.00 ATC: [declares Distress Phase of SAR]

User:Djbcjk has given me permission to upload the .pdf file to the Commons so it can be incorporated into the article on English Wikipedia. Is it possible to upload this file to the Commons? If so, what licensing and copyright permissions can be used? Dolphin51 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dolphin51, I can't help you with the copyright issue, but here's a word of advice: Text-only files are usually considered "out of scope" at Commons and may get deleted quickly (see COM:SCOPE, especially this section). If I were you, I'd try to find out if there are alternatives to an upload at Commons. Wikisource might be an option, but after reading What is Wikisource? I'm not sure about that. Might be worth a try to ask for advice at wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. --El Grafo (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@El Grafo, Dolphin51: Most files for Wikisource are uploaded on Commons. So if it is used on Wikisource, it is in scope for Commons. I have no idea about the copyright, though. Yann (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: If it's available at in Wikitext-form at Wikisource, there wouldn't be any need to upload a self-created (!) pdf here (couldn't be used as a source anyway), so I dropped that part. But in general you are right, of course. However, the question is: would Wikisource accept something like this? --El Grafo (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@El Grafo: If the copyright side is OK, probably yes. IIRC, the English WS has transcripts of some US military documents during the war in Irak (the ones which were released by Wikileaks). The notability criteria is very low for Wikisource. Anything which has been published is usually OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: as far as I understand Dolphin51 this is not about the full published report but something like a time line extracted from it. I don't know how much original research (for the lack of a better term) went into that and how much of that Wikisource is willing to accept … --El Grafo (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Concerning copyright (IANAL, so no legal advice): Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Australia might actually help here. The report was created before 1 January 1964. So – as far as I get it – if you can make sure that it falls into the category commonwealth, state, or territory-owned copyright it should be in the public domain. Looking at your example again, I'm also wondering if there's anything copyrightable in it at all. --El Grafo (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@El Grafo, Yann: Thank you both very much! I believe text-only files are acceptable on the Commons. For example: File:2004-07-22 Public Statement by the Chair and Vice Chair Regarding the 9-11 Commission Report.pdf is text only. I agree that it is highly questionable whether the spoken word can be copyrighted. If that were possible, someone could grab the text of a major speech by the US President, slap it into his own publication and declare that he has copyright over the President's speech and forbid anyone else to report on the content of the speech. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Files of scanned books are fine. Born digital documents from official sources are okay. Wikimedians making text documents are not okay; they should go directly to the Wiki. A person can't grab someone else's work in any form and copyright it for themself without a contract between the two. Speeches can be copyrighted, by the author; e.g. w:en:Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.. In the case of the US President, US law does not give him or anyone else the right to claim copyright in work done as part of the federal government; the UK claims 50 years copyright in speeches of its Prime Minister, for a counter example.
In this case, extemporaneous speech is not considered copyrightable, at least in the US. So the records of black boxes and air traffic control tapes is not copyrightable, unless they start reciting poetry or something.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently copytightless pictures[edit]

Several pictures have been uploaded to a site which doesn't appear to have any copyright on it. Am I allowed to upload it to Wikipedia? Site is here: [6] Matthewm192 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Matthewm192: All recent pictures have a copyright, even if it is not mentioned anywhere. In this case, a permission from the photographer is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Could someone take a look please[edit]

Note the three images at 2014 Eketahuna earthquake. I queried the editor who created the article here on his talk page. He said "the images were approved by Wikipedia" so I asked what he meant by that a couple of days ago. He was editing articles earlier today but has not answered me. Are these images acceptable? moriori (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

At least "File:Eketahuna earthquake man outside house.jpg" has exif data. It is image 7 in this report of the Malborough Express from August 2013 and there doesn't seem to be an indication that it is under the license claimed by the uploader to Commons. He didn't even credit the author. One could also ask why use that photo about a 2013 earthquake to illustrate a 2014 earthquake, but that's a question for Wikipedia. The user should be requested to provide links to support his statement that the photos are in the public domain, as well as better links to the sources. If no evidence is provided, you can nominate for deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi moriori, these images are clearly taken from the web. No evidence has been presented that these are available under the license claimed on the description page. I have therefore marked the images as missing permission. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Tks Asclepias and ChrisiPK. I have left a message on his Wikipedia talk page. moriori (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WhatsApp screenshots[edit]

Hi. Can this two screenshots be licensed under a free license? I don't know much about software screenshots, but I guess that if it would be allowed, there were a lot of them and not only these. Thank you. Albertojuanse (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)