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 two types of input:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

You might want to check and see if the organization has ever registered the copyright with their national copyright office. They may very well have if the image was published as part of a book. If so, then a copy of that registration can be used as evidence of ownership. --Nowa (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

de:Datei:Super_RTL_logo_2013.svg[edit]

Hello everyone,

is it possible to transfer this File to Commons?

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

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

Check licenses[edit]

Please, check the licenses for File:Boston grand piano - blue.jpg. The picture is derived from File:Szuyu Su Steinway.jpg. I don't know what "License migration redundant" means. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. Except there's no use for a "cc" parameter in the GFDL template. You can just remove it. "Licence migration redundant" means that a file was uploaded before August, 2009, that it was eligible for relicensing under CC-by-sa 3.0 during the relicensing time in 2009, but that it already had that CC license independently. The parameter "migration=redundant" includes the file in the corresponding category. Not really the case for files uploaded in 2013 or 2014. Technically, it should probably have the parameter "migration=not eligible". But that's probably not an important issue in this case, as that file has that CC license anyway. For details, see there. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you your answer. Will you please make the changes so we are sure that it is all correct? I'm not sure I know completely what should be done. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Only minor cleanup, really. Possibly nobody would have noticed if you had not requested a check. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Frederick Schultz Smith[edit]

Hello. I just uploaded about 80 images to Category:Frederick Schultz Smith (and was going to add more categories when uploaded).

Unfortunately I seem to have made some sort of error when selecting the copyright notice. - used the standard upload tool

Half have RED TEXT eg File:St Mark's Street Bridge over the Foredyke Street from the Sutton Southcoates and Drypool Gasworks, c.1888.jpg, whilst another half have got a "publisher in the US before 1923" notice (my mistake I think) eg File:Corporation Field with St Stephen's Church , 1889.jpg - I don't think these images were published in the US at all.

I think the correct licensing is as that used on File:St. George's Road Board School , c.1883.jpg

ie {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1925|country=GB}} {{PD-US-unpublished}}

UK author died in 1925.

I've become uncertain as to whether this is correct. Can someone check please. Also is there someway to apply the correct license to all the members of Category:Frederick Schultz Smith (or can I just put a notice in the category?)

Thanks.Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
  • The description of File:St Mark's Street Bridge over the Foredyke Street from the Sutton Southcoates and Drypool Gasworks, c.1888.jpg shows a red warning because you used a template (PD-Art) that requires the insertion of a parameter but you forgot to insert a parameter.
  • The status tags you used in File:Corporation Field with St Stephen's Church , 1889.jpg (PD-old and PD-1923) are fine. Your question hints that you may have misread the template PD-1923 (which you inserted through one of the two parameters of the template PD-Art-two). That template says that the work was published before 1923. It does not speak of a publisher in the US.
  • One of the two templates you used in File:St. George's Road Board School , c.1883.jpg (PD-US-unpublished) says that the work was never published before 2003. But it seems that the drawings were published a long time ago. The website of hullcc mentions that some were even used in books and newspapers.
  • Status tags are specific to files. They are not for categories. You can write a short note at the top of the category if you believe that it can be useful, but it cannot replace the status tags that must be present on each file description page.
-- Asclepias (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that the pictures were published outside the UK (ie in the US) - as they are only of local interest. If they pictures were published in the UK but not in the US then is "PD-US-unpublished" ok ?
To be honest I just don't know if or when the pictures were published in the US. They are public domain the the country of origin but I can't find/don't know a template to use for the US, and the page says I must add one.
Is {{PD-Art|1=PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1925|country=GB}} ok for these files ?Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The template "PD-US-unpublished" is for use only with works that were never published before 2003. The drawings by Smith seem to have been published before 2003.
  • Absent any evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to assume that those works were not first published or registered in the US. To indicate their copyright status in the US, various templates are available. For example, you can use the template "PD-1923" when you can reasonably determine that the work was first published before 1923, or the template "PD-1996" when you can determine that that the work was first published between 1923 and 1989.
  • "PD-old-auto-1996" is a possible alternative in the second case mentioned in the previous paragraph, i.e. when the work was first published between 1923 and 1989. It combines the templates "PD-old-auto" and "PD-1996". Technically, the wording of the template seems to allow its use also for works first published before 1923, and it may not be a mistake to use it that way, but I'm not sure if the template was really meant to be used in that situation.
  • In some cases, users can choose between several templates that are available and valid for a given situation. In those situations, different users have different preferences when it comes to choosing the templates they prefer. Feel free to develop your own preferences from the available possibilities, as long as the chosen possibility describes accurately the status of the work. For what it's worth, I would probably use something like {{PD-Art-two|1=PD-old-auto|2=PD-1923|deathyear=1925}} for the works published before 1923.
-- Asclepias (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Does ShareAlike 3.0 expire if a work is deleted?[edit]

I have a question about licensing. If a work is uploaded to Commons under ShareAlike 3.0, but then the work is deleted by the community, does the original ShareAlike license made by the copyright owner still apply? Would a subsequent derivative work made by the copyright owner still have to be released under the ShareAlike license?--Nowa (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The copyright owner can do whatever pleases him with his own work. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
A license is irrevocable. This community has no role in revoking any license. A work deleted from here only means we don't want to host it here.
But as Asclepias said above, a copyright holder can apply as many licences as he wishes. For example, my works are CC BY-SA 4.0 here; but CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 in Flickr. So in effect, they hold both licenses. Jee 03:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Sign permission is not needed if person not identifiable. Verbal permission is between the person taking the image and the person in the image. The College of Physicians and Surgeons deal with issues if they arise. Wikipedia need not get involved.
Images are not of great quality. I will take a better one when I have the chance. James Heilman, MD (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"#Asbestos cloth fuse guards" photo and Flickr stream ownership[edit]

The photo #Asbestos cloth fuse guards would likely have educational and informational value and it appears to be licensed under CC-BY 2.0 on Flickr. Veritas Consulting Safety Services Ltd has a page mentioning their Flickr stream where the previously-mentioned photo was included. At the same time, the profile page for the Veritas Consulting Flickr stream has the description "A collection of our projects (old and new) and the very popular Health and Safety (Hall of Shame) Photos sent to us by our followers" (on another note, how does the "Male and Taken" status apply to a company?) which implies that the Flickr stream includes photos from third parties. Not all the photos in the stream are licensed as CC-BY 2.0 and some of the photos seem to be from different cameras. For example, in the "Asbestos Photos" album, only one of the five photos is licensed as CC-BY 2.0, two of the five photos were taken with an Apple iPhone, and the other three photos were taken with a Canon Digital IXUS 430. It would seem that it is permissible for a Flickr stream owner to distribute photos that third parties have licensed to them (assuming that Flickr permits this), though attaching a CC license to a photo that lacks such a license would require permission from the copyright holder. All in all, would it be useful in this case to have Veritas Consulting provide confirmation (i.e. OTRS) as to whether any photos of theirs can be reused under CC licensing terms? --Gazebo (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, files from that account should certainly not be uploaded here without further clarification. Whether or not a confirmation is useful would depend on its contents and credibility. LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright on new audio recording[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Rvg 2014 uploads[edit]

If a kind admin would take a look at the uploads of Rvg 2014, all were grabbed from the Orbital Sciences website. The only good files are File:Cygnus approaching ISS.JPG and File:Landsat8 artist rendition.jpg (and have now been attributed properly), and while File:OCO-2-render artist.jpg is almost certainly NASA in origin, it is effectively the same as existing files on Commons. Everything else appears to be Orbital Sciences imagery and should be nuked. Huntster (t @ c) 01:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

19th century photos licenced by Getty images?[edit]

I found these images from the 19th century in a Vox publication and wondered if I can upload them to the commons, even though they are tagged as licensed by Getty images?. Ineuw (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You have to check the background of each photograph and compare with Copyright rules by territory. The main image is of Mabel Love with a bicycle, probably first published in the UK, so the 70 years after the photographer's death rule applies. Were it published in the USA before 1923, it would be public domain. Unfortunately Getty Images make no effort to change incorrect licences for public domain images they host (even when we write and complain about even extremely famous public domain photographs), so many customers probably pay to use them when they have no legal need to pay anything. -- (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your reply FæIneuw (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

French stamp help wanted[edit]

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

Some questions about copyrights.[edit]

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

I found on that page some information:

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

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

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

Chinese music[edit]

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

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

Photo of Asilomar Conference Grounds room[edit]

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