Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓

This project page in other languages: English | +/− Shortcuts: COM:VPCOPY COM:VPC COM:CQ 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 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. Have you read the FAQ? 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). 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 Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.   Start a new discussion

Help promote VPC

Please help make sure that this venue for discussing copyright issues is appropriately linked from other Wikimedia wikis. Examples include en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and its equivalents. However in linking here please make it clear that the primary venue for copyright discussions should be that wiki. Users should come here only for discussing copyright issues relevant to Commons - most commonly files which could potentially be moved to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally.

File:Wikimedia-logo.svg

This logo is discussed in w:WP:Media copyright questions#File:Wikimedia-logo.svg about its copyright eligibility.

	“ Curious: how does this logo meet the criterion for copyright as defined here? Specifically, "Lastly, a logo is not eligible for copyright if it consists entirely of simple geometric shapes." ”
	(User:Weatherman1126)

Is this logo supposed to be eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It could be possible that the Wikimedia logo is copyrighted in the UK, even if it is not eligible for copyright in the US. --84.61.139.62 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH

"Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use." - this requirement is based on US law, so maybe we can change this to "Permission to use these images in the USA for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use."? Bulwersator (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? w:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government says that "The act only applies to U.S. domestic copyright as that is the extent of U.S. federal law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries." In theory, both commercial and noncommercial purposes require permission for use outside the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty nebulous theory, particularly in countries which use the rule of the shorter term after the U.S. joined the Berne Convention (it was even dubious under the UCC, though possible). The means of enforcement that the IOH uses is not copyright law, but something else specific to U.S. law, which is why I thought the change was OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see with the rule of the shorter term, but if there's no rule of the shorter term, why wouldn't they have copyright? The Institute of Heraldry is making a world-wide claim to control commercial usage on their website, so I think our license should at least reflect the claim.

I'm curious if all courts would draw the line between copyright and non-copyright restrictions the way we have. This is certainly a copyright-like restriction, and the IOH refers to as copyright on their website.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Their claim is specifically using 18 USC 704 and 32 CFR 507 as their authority, not Title 17 (which is copyright law). It sounds like they may also be able to use 18 USC 701 as an authority as well -- the CFR sections are just regulations, under authority granted to them by other law. Yep, indeed, 32 CFR 507.5 cites those two law sections as its authority, so that is the limit of what they can really control (and those are U.S. laws, which do not apply overseas, and are more fraud-related, not copyright). As for overseas, they would have to use copyright, and they are not making that claim (I have seen one two government agencies make the claim, but not them). The possible claim to foreign rights was thought to be enforceable based on a particular interpretation the Universal Copyright Convention; when the question was posed to the Intergovernmental Committee though, the responses were decidedly mixed. The Copyright Office mentions the results in their 1982 annual report (pages 14 and 15), where they say: In the final analysis, it appears clear that the extent to which U.S. Government agencies may exercise foreign copyrights in their works under the UCC can be determined only on a country-by-country basis. The full report is here, if you want to see the responses from the other governments. Since then, of course, the U.S. has acceded to the Berne Convention, which I don't think has the particular language which the previous opinion hinged on, so I'm not sure that nowadays any country would be required to give protection (unless it is deemed the UCC still requires it for those signatories). They might choose to give protection anyways, yes, but it would seem to be uncertain at best. I'm not aware of any concrete test case either, so it remains an entirely theoretical issue. Even in 1976, there was a proposal to allow the NTIS a five-year copyright on some of its publications, primarily to enable it to enforce foreign copyrights, but it ended up not being included in the law. There is another exception though, 15 USC 290e (the Standard Data Reference Act), which allows the Department of Commerce to copyright certain data published under that act -- so if it's important enough, the Congress can act to protect certain works. But from what I see, the USAIOH is not making any claims based on Title 17. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Government works from British India

What copyright law do we need to consider for stamps and other government works from British India? At File:1937 Official stamps of India.jpg, Philafrenzy uploaded the image claiming it was expired crown copyright as a work of the British government (British Indian stamps were made for the colonial government and published in India), and after I changed the tags to PD under Indian law and the URAA, insisted these should stay. I imagine that since they were published in British India, this would be that of India—and also of Pakistan, I suppose—as the successors to British India. The old laws of British India and those of the United Kingdom could not apply, I expect, at least not in the source countries and U.S., and if works of the British Indian government were crown copyright they are no longer. —innotata 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-India}} applies to material produced in India specifically after the 1957 India Copyright Act, though India does claims copyright for 60 years, so the only grey period could be 1952-1957. Pre-independence is not covered by this act but by Crown copyright because India was part of the empire until 1948, so such stamps that Philafrenzy uploaded and tagged as crown copyright are entirely proper. I have not actually checked all of his uploads. However, I suspect that between independence in 1948 and the 1957 act, crown copyright may have applied, as has been usual for most countries gaining independence from the UK where most laws are inherited until such time as a new law superseeds. This law inheritance happened in Ireland too for most laws, otherwise mayhem ensues. Neither {{PD-old}} nor {{PD-India}} can properly apply to the above mentioned stamp, though {{PD-old}} could possibly apply but why be imprecise when we can be precise. Ww2censor (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

India has had their own copyright law since the 1840s; it is generally similar to whatever the UK act was (they kept it updated), but it was separate. They have been a member of the Berne Convention (again separate from the UK) since 1928. It's not a UK work. But, India also had the 50-year term for government works in their law. So, yes, I'd just switch to {{PD-India}}; seems straightforward. India did extend the terms to 60 years effective 1991, but it was not retroactive, so it was PD by then and therefore wouldn't have been restored by the URAA either, if that is a question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming Carl is correct, and he usually is, then the {{PD-India}} template should be more specific in its details be pre-independence material. The way if stands that is not mentioned and implies, at least to me, a post-independence copyright law only. Ww2censor (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your statement, Carl, is what I expected from British India's status: I assume from your post you know the copyright term for most works was the same as that under the regularising law of 1957. I made the point about the copyright term given on PD-India on Template talk:PD-India earlier. —innotata 16:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Expiring copyright

Help, I uploaded (en:File:Som‌Nath‌Sharma.jpg) this image under "use rationale". This is image of person who died 60 years ago. Is it allowed to move this image to commons. A user (en:User_talk:Raghith#Please_assist) asked me for this.

I found (en:Copyright_law_of_India#Duration_of_copyright) this.-- Raghith 07:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the photo is public domain in India, as the photo is old (1947+1+60=2008), but it is not old enough to be public domain in USA. If the URAA year of India is 1996, only photos from before 1936 are free (those from 1937 will be in 2032), and Som‌ Nath‌ Sharma is hardly only 13 years on the photo. There might have been changes in the law, such that the copyright expired earlier, but they should be identified before moving the image to here. There are no such exceptions mentioned in Commons:Licensing#India --LPfi (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Thank you for answering my question. -- Raghith 10:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indian photos published before 1941 are public domain under the URAA, see Template talk:PD-India; I'll add something to the template. Since he was commissioned in 1942 I assume that means this is copyright in the U.S., but you should want to know the copyright status for future reference. —innotata 16:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I added this to Commons:Licensing#India, using en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Dates of restoration and terms of protection. The old 50-years term probably concerns also other types of work, which can be added using the references in the en-wp article. --LPfi (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disney characters deletion requests

Hello,

There have been several deletion requests of public domain documents under the pretext that Disney characters are copyrighted. I think that these DR try to introduce new restrictions under the disguise of a DR. This is not the right process. In addition, these DR go against Commons' mission, i.e. to host documents as much as the law allows. This is playing in the hand of Disney against the spirit of the free content movement: trying to impose new restrictions on public domain documents. It should not happen here. It is quite suspicious because the DR were specially targeting old documents, in spite of the fact that we have plenty of new documents: Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. Yann (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Bear poster" (Disney) - NARA - 513938.tif is not about Disney characters being copyrighted. The poster is a direct copy of the Donald Duck daily newspaper strip from 19 May 1941[1] and the copyright for this newspaper strip was renewed (see the quote of the renewal record in the deletion request). You may also be interested in reading about The Uncensored Mouse. According to the article in that book, the publisher was planning to publish all Mickey Mouse daily and Sunday strips up until 1936, so I assume that those strips may be {{PD-US-not renewed}}, although character copyrights could cause problems. See also #Warner Bro.'s cartoons above. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, if the copyright is still valid, then OK to delete it. But as this was, and still is (AFAIK) republished by NARA, it should be very carefully examined. I mean that the public domain claim does not come from some uninformed contributor. Yann (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A U.S. 2011 court case made pretty clear that even if the copyright on something like these were not renewed, they could still be considered derivative works of the drawn character, if that was still under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between a copyrighted work because of a copyrighted character, and a PD work with additional restrictions (non-derivative and/or non-commercial) because of a copyrighted character. We need to established clearly in which case these are included. In the former case, we can't host them on Commons. In the later case, I understand that people have said that we can't host them because of the non-derivative and/or non-commercial restrictions, but that is not in the current writing of Commons' requirements.

And there are important consequences beyond these old works, because we may need to delete most of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. Yann (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there is not much difference. We delete derivative works all the time, because in that case distribution is dependent on the copyright of the underlying work as well. This is no different. Yes, you could pull out all the non-character parts of the poster, and use those. There was some argumentation before that there was some sort of implied license due to the lack of renewal, and even Warner Bros did not contest the copying of the "poster as poster" (just taking the poster and making a t-shirt), which may have implied that some previous rulings may have indicated that certain uses were OK, but the judge pretty much slammed the door on that reasoning (they only allowed "poster as poster" because of the explicit permission given by Warner). Keep in mind, the three-circle silhouette version of mickey is not at all the same thing, i don't think, and photographs of costumes etc. also may be a different situation. But the straightforward grabs from the Mad Doctor may be an issue, yes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, then we need to update and complete Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Licensing. Yann (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mickey Mouse - The Mad Doctor.png for a start, only from the Mickey category. There are probably more. Yann (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times says that grabs from "Mad Doctor" is not only an issue, but is a quite costly issue.

“ He would market recreated animation cels from a 1933 Mickey Mouse short called "The Mad Doctor." Brown had discovered that the Disneys failed to renew copyright claims on that film. But the Disney company sued so quickly that Brown never sold a cel. Although "The Mad Doctor" was indeed out of copyright, that long-ago oversight had not freed Mickey, whose ostensible copyright protection predated the short. Brown lost. Worse, he was clobbered with a $500,000 judgment. ”

(http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/22/business/fi-mickey22/2)

Trycatch (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that the Donald Duck images were moved to wikilivres:Category:Donald Duck. As far as I know, Canada doesn't apply the rule of the shorter term on US government publications, so even if this is {{PD-USGov}} they would still have to wait until they become {{PD-old-50}} until they are free in Canada, wouldn't they? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, all works were published more than 50 years ago. The copyright restrictions on Disney characters are probably the same under Canadian law through. Yann (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

requests to release into the public domain

Are there any procedures for requesting someone to relinquish their copyright on an image? Take as an example this picture; I suppose the steps required are:

1. ask the club if they hold the copyright to the image;
2. if so, ask them if they are willing to release it into the public domain;
3. if so, upload it here.

Is there any guidance about how to go about this? U+003F^? 11:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please see COM:OTRS. And do notice that there is no reason to release to public domain, unless they want to. The much more restrictive {{CC-BY-SA 3.0}} meets our needs. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, just what I was looking for. U+003F^? 19:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

French gravestones

Are French gravestones copyrightable? I found en:File:Whymper Grave.jpg when moving some images from Wikipedia to Commons and wasn't sure what to do. Some things to consider:

• Are regular gravestones copyrightable in France? This would be nice to know not only for this image, but also for images in general in case I stumble upon other images. Since this stone just appears to be an unshaped stone with a plaque, I guess that it would be fine.
• Are gravestones always anonymous works? This one was erected in 1911, so if anonymous, it would be {{Anonymous-EU}} (and {{PD-1923}} if copyrightable in the United States). --Stefan4 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This one is too simple IMO, but yes, I think there might be a copyright for original gravestones. Effectively, most are anonymous, except some famous ones. See Category:Cemetery Père-Lachaise for examples. Yann (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In most cemeteries in France, taking pictures ("la prise de photo") is forbidden by their internal regulations, which are usually published at the entrance. I know this is not related to copyright, but they will not like if they see you with a camera at a cemetery. The official explanation a particular town hall has given (in refusal of a request to take pictures for an on-line gallery) was "pour des raisons de droit d'auteur et de respect des familles" ("for reasons of author rights and respect of the families"). There are some exceptions to this rule (always check the conditions at the entrance), while it may indeed be irrelevant for Commons and only recommendations similar to those for Museum photography may apply. As there is, however, no Freedom of panorama in France, any work of art, even if situated permanently on a public place (such as a cemetery) might indeed be protected by copyright. And I think that in most cases it's unfortunately difficult, if not impossible, to establish the threshold of origin, the authorship or the date of creation (How can you be sure the particular gravestone was erected in 1911? Tombstones are often erected only some years after the burial, e.g. when the family got enough money, or time, etc.). I don't think many gravestones have name of the architect and year of creation engraved somewhere in the corner, and those that have are probably copyrightable (and if you are not very lucky, it's not that common they would have got out of copyright - 70 years plus rest of architect's life, including any possible war extensions - yet still not out of the cemetery...). Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Public artworks are, as far as I know, copyrighted in all countries. Freedom of panorama provisions in certain countries merely state that a photo of them isn't a derivative work (and is thus allowed).

Other reasons (such as respect for the dead people's families) are, as far as I can see, only an issue for the photographer. Similarly, many countries may have rules disallowing photography inside military bases (since the photos could be used by foreign spies) and similar places. If the photographer ignores those rules, I assume that the photographer could be fined for this, but I don't see why this would be an issue for Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if you have read the museum guidelines I have linked to, the whole thing about ignoring photo prohibition is discussed there in details, with the same conclusions you have drawn. I accept your point related to FoP - I should have written "photographs of any work of art..." instead. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Yann that this one is too simple, so even if this was erected well after the death year of 1911, I think it's OK here. Speaking as a general rule, I think a suitably original gravestone would be copyrightable. Also, it's possible that a gravestone might incorporate previously created copyrighted elements; for example, people have put Winnie the Pooh (the Disney version), Hello Kitty, and probably many other copyrighted characters on gravestones. cmadler (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of gravestone copyright (this from the US)...Commons:Deletion requests/File:George and Lenore Romney grave.JPG cmadler (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in Logo Copyright/Trademark flagging

Given that the majority of logos on Wikimedia are considered non-copyrightable due to Commons:Threshold_of_originality, I was surprised that File:Wiki-commons.png is claimed as Copyright. To me, this seems to break with Commons:Licensing - I would have expected this logo to fit under one of the PD*logo non-copyrightable, while retaining the Trademarked flag. Can someone point me to the discussion on why this logo is copyrightable? Mr. Bene (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation claims copyright on the official symbols of the projects. As long as they do, adding a {{PD-ineligible}} is probably not doable. It is a shame that WMF has taken this position, quite contrary to what we try convincing other organizations to do (if trademark law is enough for those others, why not for WMF?). As a result the articles on sv-wp about Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia & co do not show the logos, and likewise any {{commonscat}} give plain text links in the External links sections. Policy of sv-wp forbids using non-free illustrations. --LPfi (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

But sv:Mall:Commonscat does show the Commons logo (to the left under "På andra projekt"). --Stefan4 (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We deemed the margins are not part of the articles and that the requirement on illustrations is restricted to the articles themselves. The main Wikipedia logo was also kept, obviously. --LPfi (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be interesting if the WMF submitted their logos for copyright registration, to see which ones succeed. However, even if denied, there are almost certainly countries where it does pass the threshold of originality, and the WMF would retain full rights there, so the tag isn't necessarily wrong even if not eligible in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is something of a double standard though - given that (1) the Threshold of Originality is applied with minimal examination by non-lawyers to non-WMF logos, and (2) any non-WMF logo (or content) must be shared with a free license. What you're saying suggests that (1) the Threshold of Originality should not apply to the WMF logo even if the US lawyers say that it does, and that (2) the free license requirement should be waived anyway. As far as I can tell, WMF has a very valid claim on their logos as Trademarks - and has actually registered "Wikipedia" (and probably others) with the Trademark office in the US and likely elsewhere. However, the body of other, actively used and trademarked logos hosted on the site considered specifically non-copyrightable because of the Threshold of Originality suggests that there should be a documented decision somewhere about why the WMF logos are exempt. Mr. Bene (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If it does not pass the threshold of originality in the U.S., then obviously any copyright claims are meaningless for uses inside the U.S. I'm not sure if it's above or below the line, honestly. It's close.... the potential copyright would be on the arrangement of the different elements. It would be best to attempt registration, so we'd know, letting us more accurately describe the status. There are almost certainly some countries though where copyright would be valid. Secondly, since this is their own site, a tag may indicate to some people that there is permission to use the trademark as well, which would not be true, and I think such assumptions generally wouldn't be made for third-party logos, who obviously have no ownership or responsibility in the website, and tagging here could not reasonably be assumed to indicate an implied permission. Trademark owners need to actively protect their trademark, and a "public domain" statement on their own site could be problematic (even though the term here means purely in respect to copyright, not everyone will read it that way). It's a touchy issue, of course, and perhaps the tag should also get a registered trademark symbol on the left, to indicate it is partly about trademarks as well. WMF logos are exempt from the need to have a copyright tag on Commons, for practical purposes. That long-standing decision is documented at Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, with the two (very) old DRs here and here.

Funnily enough, I've recently been trying to clarify these issues, since I found m:Logo quite confusing. There was a recent statement from the WMF about File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg and related logos at m:Talk:Logo#Commons_discussion_on_copyrightability_of_logos. Rd232 (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's... fascinating. They own the trademark for the WMF logo, but they may not have received a copyright assignment, so they may not have standing to actually even attempt to register the copyright. And it was possibly GFDL in the first place, though I'm not sure where the original logo was uploaded (at one point it was at meta... were those old image histories retained? An old revision at Neolux's meta page shows it was uploaded as early as 2003, but the original license is not mentioned (and not sure that is the original version); not sure if the upload history is still recoverable. meta:User:Neolux has his design rationale. meta:File:Ncwikimediafound.png and meta:File:Ncwikimediaorg.png are variants he uploaded, without mentioning a license (the formalities in 2003 were different, I'm sure -- maybe assumed that all submissions were GFDL). What fun ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but where it really gets fun is thinking about the attribution requirement implications of it being GFDL... Rd232 (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that there are a few very simple Wikimedia logos, such as File:Wikipedia-favicon.png, which are marked as being in the public domain. I suppose that they should also have a trademark statement so that the trademark won't be lost. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Pay Attention Here - Synopsis!

• It is implied that WMF has actively sought copyright on certain logos (and other content) - this is stated in the 2005 public consultation on whether to allow the hosting of the copyrighted WMF logos, with the alternative being to not host the logos. Commons:Alter_Wikimedia_Commons_policy_to_allow_Wikimedia_logos.
• There is a category for content that is copyright by Wikimedia. Category:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
• Deletion logs related to the logos have split the issue as Delete OR Allow the WMF Copyright here and here (thanks unsigned contributor).

From this, I have two core questions with regards to the logos specifically:

1. Did WMF seek copyright, or simply claim copyright?
2. If copyright was simply claimed, shouldn't the Threshold of Originality apply, making the logos ineligible?

Note that copyright-ineligibility does not exclude the trademark claim - and WMF has a very strong trademark claim. Mr. Bene (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, there is an argument against using trademark in the Talk section of the Alter Policy link. ref Mr. Bene (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That is:

"That being said, I would like that option best, but don't think it's practicable:

• trademarks would have to be registered in a great many countries. This is troublesome and expensive.
• trademarks are hardet to defend than copyright, especially internationally.
• and most importantly: if a trademarked image is licensed under a free license by it's owner, the terms of the free license and the trademark policy may confligt. In court, the license may well "win" over the trademark, making it uneffective.

Just my 2¢ -- Duesentrieb(?!) 02:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)"

The same points apply to other entities freely licensing their logos. I have been giving the advice to license them freely and rely on trademark law, but it seems it has been bad advice, and when a company asks why their logo isn't in the article about them, I should tell them that it is impossible due to Wikipedia policy (with exceptions to en and others allowing non-free media), unless they are willing to risk loosing the trademark. --LPfi (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this to around to my original implication - the copyright flagging of WMF logos is inconsistent, when compared to the flagging of other logos as non-copyrightable. Consider, for example, File:Sony_logo.svg, which clearly bears the {{PD-textlogo}}. However, Sony claims copyright of this logo (among other things) here, by saying "All materials on this Site, [...] are protected by copyright[...]. There are a number of proprietary logos, service marks, and trademarks found on this Site. By making them available on this Site, Sony is not granting you any license to utilize those proprietary logos, service marks, or trademarks." There's a possibly stronger claim in their usage guide.

That said, if we're going by US copyright law, then we need to look here: "How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo? Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. [...] However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship." This brings it back to my question with regards to WMF seeking or claiming copyright on the logos - if it's just claimed, how does it differ from the Sony logo?

Finally, went to read the Rd232 link above, and will leave a note on Maggie Dennis talk page to this discussion. Mr. Bene (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Satellite model

I took a picture of Navid stellite model in Iran University of Science and Technology. Can I uploade it here? I know that it's a derivative work but its shape is really simple and it looks like a simple box! It is eligible for copyright protection? AMERICOPHILE 18:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have little idea if Iran would consider that a derivative work -- do you think so? Their 1970 law on the web is pretty nebulous about that aspect. If it's a full scale or test model, using actual production parts or has some sort of testing purpose, that may make it more utilitarian. If you, for example, sold a postcard of your photo in Iran, could the author of the model have a valid complaint against you? Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a test model and has some sort of testing purpose. In Iran copyright is not respected at all and nobody will sue you because of copyright issues! AMERICOPHILE 19:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you did take the picture, I guess I'd say upload it, under the assumption it's utilitarian. If someone has concerns, it could be discussed later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Photos taken on private property

We have recevied an OTRS ticket (2012020510001614) with issues about an en-article (en:Crabtree Hot Springs, California). An particular editor (User:CrabTree13) has edited to article to show that the attraction is open to the public, whereas in fact is not, and is completely located on private property. In addition they have uploaded images taken on that property. The article and some links have been rectified. Am I correct in thinking that as the photographer was obviously trespassing, that these images should be removed?

• File:RiceFork.jpg
• File:CrabTreeHotSprings32.jpg
• File:CrabTreeHotSprings.JPG

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's "private property"? Is there any citable independent confirmation that it was indeed private property? Some links: Aug 2010, Aug 2011, 2007-2012. There's just claims and counter-claims (and some shouting, too), but the last online reports seem to indicate that it is not closed off.

On trespassing, the general theory here is that this is an issue between the photographer and the land owner and doesn't concern the Commons. Whether that theory is or is not correct can only be answered by the WMF legal team. Lupo 20:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Google Maps shows it to be within the bounds of the Mendocino National Forest, though I'm sure there is some private property in there, and one of the links Lupo gave above has a user comment which states that one side of the river is national forest, and the other private property. This link is a thread about the road dispute, and has a supposed map of the property. Sounds like it is heavily disputed, at the very least, and claims of "full private property" or "open to the public" on the article should probably come from a reliable source. There also seem to be disputes about a road leading there. In any event, the copyright to the photos is still held by the photographer; they could request removal if it gets them into any unanticipated legal trouble, but our general policy has always been that it's up to them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if this is private property, I do not see why the images should be removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all that - now I know how to reply. If there is still an issue they will have to take it up with legal.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case, the photos only show nature, so I see no problem. If there was some trespassing involved, that is only an issue between the land owner and the photographer. However, I'm wondering if trespassing might be relevant for US buildings completed after 1 December 1990, since COM:FOP#United States only applies to photos taken from public places. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png

I added an image "Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png" from the paper "Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia". The image is high quality and represents the cutting edge of genetics research. Permission for Wikipedia use and the high res image was given to me by one of the authors, Prof. Shuhua Xu of the Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences and the Human Genome Organization. I stated this in the image description. It has been deleted as a copyvio. Can somebody check this out? I have the image to upload again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.111.31 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-15T11:26:44‎ (UTC)

If the permission was only for Wikipedia, that's why it was deleted. Anyone must be allowed to use the image, not only Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The paper itself is in the public domain as you can see from the link, so anyone can use the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.111.31 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-15T11:47:18 (UTC)

Hm? I can't find any public domain notice. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The author has given permission for use on the public encyclopedia Wikipedia, and must therefore be aware that people might print it out and stuff, or in other words that "anyone will be allowed to use the image". He gave me permission and a copy of the original image. What more could you possibly need? Do you want to contact him yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.111.31 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-15T12:28:00‎ (UTC)

Based on your information, the author has given permission for use on Wikipedia. Period. Anyone can print things out (or take photocopies of the original Science magazine) but that doesn't make it legal to do so. Lots of people like to use file sharing software, but that doesn't mean that the files shared are in the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Then please do me the favor of emailing Prof. Shuhua Xu[2] to confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.111.31 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-15T12:37:54‎ (UTC)

Why not ask the copyright owner to mail Commons:OTRS with a free licence? See "If you need to confirm permission" - I think that's how this is usually done on Commons. -84user (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? OK I'll do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.111.31 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-16T10:48:30 (UTC)

Photo on Flickr and Wikimedia commons

I have uploaded a photo on Wikimedia commons: File:Amercan Bison2.JPG. I made this picture myself. Problem is that I have also uploaded it to Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11774983@N02/6367519339/in/photostream. Is there a problem of copyright? Do I have to remove the flickr-photo because of copyright? Citypeek (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You have the right to upload your images at different places. However, the one on Flickr is marked as having all rights reserved. It may be necessary to prove that you are the owner of the Flickr account (see COM:OTRS) or you could alternatively change the licence on Flickr. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this grave pass the threshold of originality?

File:Bo Schembechler Grave Forest Hill Cemetery 2.JPG If so, I think we must delete, but I wanted another opinion before opening a deletion discussion. Most of it looks like the natural shape, but there are four straight lines joined by three right angles carved into the upper left corner. cmadler (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd have a hard time seeing four straight lines joined by three right angles ever pass the threshold of originality. If all the rough pattern is natural, then it should be fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright restored in Ukraine? Please, help

This deletion request questions validity of {{PD-Ukraine}} at least for some works covered by this. Please help resolve that issue. A.J. (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks to have been deleted in error, unless it was a work published posthumously. The Ukraine extended their terms from 50pma to 70pma in 2001, however, it was not retroactive, per section IV(4): It shall be established that as from the day on which this Law enters into force, the terms of copyright protection, stipulated in Article 28 of this Law and parts 1 and 2 of Article 44 of this Law, shall apply in all cases where the 50-year period of copyright validity after the author's death or the period of validity of related rights has not expired prior to the date of entry into force of this Law. So, the nominator was not aware of the full scope of the law, and {{PD-Ukraine}} looks to be correct. Since the author died before 1946, there should be no URAA issues either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Small correction. The Final Provisions belong to Section VI (6, on page 41), not Section IV (4). I read it. It's worth noting also that Article 28.-7. covers the following exception. "Copyright in a work that was first published within 30 years of the author's death shall remain in effect for 70 years after the date of lawful publication of the work." So therefore, it is important to know where the published image originated from in order to use it. But please, type into your search box the phase "Soviet" as mentioned in the {{PD-Ukraine}}. Not a single instance could be found in the entire document. A. Kupicki (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Section IV(6) is noting similar non-retroactivity for foreign works inside Ukraine; Section IV(4) seems to be for Ukrainian works in particular and makes reference to the terms in article 28. Going by this copy of the 2001 law, anyways. If the copyright had expired by 2001, its copyright was not restored. Yes, there are potential complications with posthumous works (as noted by {{PD-Ukraine}}, but the term would likely be limited at 50 years, not the 70 indicated in the new law. So, the important part would be to see the terms in the earlier law, as the ones you quote above are only applicable if the work was still under copyright under the old law in 2001. I think the Ukrainian version of the older law is here, which I *think* says 50 years from publication if published within 30 years of the author's death. Otherwise (published > 30, or before death) the terms were 50 pma. So, if works by this author were first published in 1950, they would still have expired by 2001 and would not be restored (though that particular situation would be a U.S. issue with the URAA). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As for Soviet, that gets into a tangled issue. The Ukrainian law does claim works made by citizens or permanent residents of the Ukraine -- obviously, the Ukraine was part of the USSR at one time, and thus Ukrainian copyright will include works made during the Soviet era. Additionally, there is some question about USSR works being "simultaneously published" in all the SSRs when looked at from today's perspective, which can affect some treatment of works by foreign countries under the Berne Convention or the U.S. URAA "source country" definitions. In other words, for the URAA, some Soviet works will be determined to be the Ukraine as the country with the "greatest contacts" with the work, thus making the Ukraine the "source country" for URAA purposes per U.S. law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are you saying that a Soviet work might be determined as having been published concurrently in all SSRs? This makes s:Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works/Articles 1 to 21#Article 5 4a very interesting: "in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection". How does the URAA determine the copyright status in the source country if two Soviet republics have the same copyright term? Let's say that a Soviet works entered the public domain on 1 January 1998 in PD-old-50 countries and it is determined as concurrently published in Belarus (URAA date: 12 December 1997) and Azerbaijan (URAA date: 4 June 1999). Would such a work be protected in the United States under the URAA? --Stefan4 (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The possibility has been brought up before. It is one way to look at things when a country breaks up in multiple countries, and items had been considered published in the entire original country prior to that. Although, each SSR was their own republic, and they did each have their own copyright law (which had to conform to the general USSR one) -- not sure if they would have been considered separate countries. It would come up when a country would have to determine the country of origin when applying the rule of the shorter term -- I'm not aware of a test case, so it remains theoretical. The URAA does not use that definition though; in a "simultaneous publication" situation they use the country with the "greatest contacts with the work". More of a common-sense thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand on what grounds, our own Template:PD-Ukraine speaks of "Soviet work", whereas the Ukrainian copyright law does not speak it once. I'm sure the lawmakers did not forget their own Soviet history and did not make that omission by accident. It was intentional. Therefore, in our template the "Soviet" should be replaced with the "Soviet-Ukrainian" at the least, not to be confused with the "Soviet-Russian". It was a Republic after all, separate in many respects but one. A. Kupicki (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that'd be fine, or "Ukrainian SSR". I think it was just to clarify it covered old works as well, not just works created in the Ukraine since independence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on this, Carl Lindberg. I think, "Ukrainian SSR" sounds more professional. I like that. Now, we can go back to the original issue of my Deletion requests for File:Бой_Максима_Кривоноса_с_Иеремией_Вишневецким.jpg. The Article 28.-7 of Ukraine Law on Copyright and Related Rights states: "Copyright in a work that was first published within 30 years of the author's death shall remain in effect for 70 years after the date of lawful publication of the work." Mykola Samokysh (Николай Самокиш) died in 1944. His painting mentioned above was published several times within 30 years of his death. It appeared in Большая Советская Энциклопедия (БСЭ). Here's the link to all of editions during his lifetime and well beyond. Quoted dates include 1926–1947, 1950–1958, and 1969–1978: "Первое издание было выпущено с 1926 по 1947 гг. Второе издание Большой Советской Энциклопедии было выпущено с 1950 по 1958 гг. Третье издание БСЭ, представленное на данном сайте было выпущено с 1969 по 1978 годы." The painting by Samokysh copyrighted and featured in the Soviet Encyclopedia is described in detail at Илюстрация "Самокиш Н. С. «Бой Максима Кривоноса с Иеремией Вишневецким»" в Большой Советской Энциклопедии with the following caption: "Н. С. Самокиш. «Бой Максима Кривоноса с Иеремией Вишневецким». 1934. Музей украинского искусства УССР. Киев." By all means, it is still protected by Ukraine copyright law extending all the way to "Ukrainian SSR". A. Kupicki (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

*First* published. That clause does not apply if a work was published during the author's lifetime -- it's the first publication which is the critical one. The idea is to give some protection for works only published posthumously. Since it was published during his lifetime, the copyright therefore expired on January 1, 1995 and was not restored when the terms were extended in 2001. And like I said earlier, even if the first publication occurred in 1950, the earlier law just said *50* years from publication, if first published in the 30 years following death, and that would have expired on January 1, 2001, and would also have remained public domain despite the law change later in 2001. Only copyrights which still subsisted during the year in 2001 got extended. So, if this author had a work which was first published in 1951, then it would have still been copyrighted through 2001, and so would have gotten extended to the 70 years, and its copyright would then expire on January 1, 2022. But again, that is only if the *first* publication occurred in that year; if first published during the author's lifetime (by far the most common situation), the term was a straight 50pma, and only authors who died in 1951 and later got such works extended to 70pma. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification. I said, Samokysh copyrighted painting appeared in Большая Советская Энциклопедия (БСЭ) which was published during his lifetime and beyond. I didn't actually say that the Soviet Encyclopedia published his painting during his lifetime simply because the source (above) does not specify that. I don't know when the Encyclopedia featured his painting for the first time. It might have been in its 1950–1958 edition, or perhaps in its 1969–1978 edition, both published after his death. My feeling is that the 1926–1947 edition probably didn't include his work yet. Would you please help me search for the correct answer? A. Kupicki (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it seems pretty unlikely that someone who was given an award by Stalin would not have had it published, one way or another, at the time. I'm afraid I'm not great at searching Ukrainian or Russian language stuff, and there is probably relatively little available on Google Books (particularly stuff which is visible). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Anyhow, the painting "Бой Максима Кривоноса" was produced in 1934. The artwork didn't exist until eight years after the launch of the Soviet Encyclopedia, printed volume by volume for the next twenty years. It is fair to assume it is copyright protected, based on Article 28.-7 of Ukraine Law on Copyright. We have concrete proof that it was published there after the author's death (link). A. Kupicki (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• How did you come to this conclusion? The painting is oil on canvas, and it belongs to the State Museum of Ukrainian Art in Kiev (and is attributed as such in GSE). Since Samokish was a pretty famous artist in thew 1930s, it is more logical to assume that the painting was bought by/given to the museum right after it was created.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think it's fair to assume that at all. I think it's fair to assume it was published in his lifetime (he lived 10 years beyond that, not sure why he would make the painting then keep it private), in which case copyright expired in 1995. More technically, it probably expired a lot earlier, got restored in 1993 when the Ukraine enacted their law, and expired again in 1995. It does not matter in the least if it was published after the author's death, provided it was published before that. Is there *any* indication that the author kept this painting private, such that it was only make public many years after his death, i.e. only after 1950? Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I said, we have a concrete proof that the work was published in the Soviet Encyclopedia within 30 years after the author's death (see Article 28.-7 from above). Everything else is crystal-balling. A. Kupicki (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• We do not have any proof it was the first publication, and most likely it was not.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and did I mention the crystal-balling? A. Kupicki (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is no way the encyclopedia was the first publication. It would have to be a well-known work for it to be put there in the first place. Honestly... there is rarely 100% certainty, and sometimes we do make reasonable assumptions. If you can find any reference that it was only published posthumously, that would change things, certainly. In this case though, it seems a virtual certainty that it was published during the author's lifetime. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Does not first public exhibition make a "publication" of oil painting? Do you actually need to create a printed reproduction of painting to consider it "published" in terms of Ukraine law? A.J. (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Exhibits are irrelevant here. The copyright concerns the reproductions of paintings and the legal and moral right to benefit from their distribution. The artwork came into being during the darkest days of Stalinist terror in the Soviet Union, and only one year after the famine-genocide in Ukraine resulting in near collapse of its economy. To assert that it might have been published before the author's death shows little understanding for what went on during the Great Purge economically. The painting is copyright protected based on facts available to us at this time. However, it might not be, if additional facts are presented to us at a later time. A. Kupicki (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

According to his Wiki article, the author received the Stalin Prize in 1941. Whatever the overall situation, it would seem that this particular artist had Stalin's favor at the time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 Question. Did his anti-Polish war painting contribute to Samokysh receiving the Stalin Prize in 1941 following the 1939 invasion of Poland and the German Operation Barbarossa? I'd say, substantially. But was it commissioned by the Encyclopedia around 1934 considering its highly politicized character? We don't know that. Please keep in mind also the mind boggling scope of Polish operation of the NKVD in 1937 extended mostly to Ukraine? Needless to say, these scenarios have no actual bearing on the Ukraine copyright law of today. A. Kupicki (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a question of Soviet history, the question is what we consider «publication of a painting». This painting was acquired by the Museum of Ukrainian Art between 1935 and 1937 (see museum website). Can we consider a painting in a museum collection «published» or it has to be published in printed/electronic form? (Ukrainian law explicitly states «published / опублікований» and not «promulgated / оприлюднений») I don't have any exact information but this painting was bought after national exhibition (most likely one held in 1935, as one held in 1937 was dedicated to Socialist Ukraine), thus it is likely to be published in some exhibiton catalogue, but it will be very difficult to find this catalogue now — NickK (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Ukrainian law of 1993 does contain a definition of publication. I believe it includes works given to an archive, where anyone can come and examine it, and make copies. So if the museum allowed photography, yes, that would probably be publication. The painting was certainly not kept private. And yes, particularly given that it was in the museum, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it being published prior to 1951. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please give us some facts, or this discussion will never end. Within 30 years of the author's death in 1944, the 1934 painting was published in the Soviet Encyclopedia. There's no proof of an earlier commercial print in compliance with Article 28.-7 of Ukraine Law on Copyright. The image appears to be lifted from a webpage in breach of our basic licensing policy. And, why exactly did you mention the year of 1951? A. Kupicki (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Please archive this discuccion to PD-Ukraine's template talk as soon as it's finished. A.J. (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think if it was hanging on a wall in public at the exhibition in 1935 and later in the museum from 1937 on, this is publication. (Though indeed the photo could have been additionally published in a catalogue - but we can not require the publication of a photo, otherwise, for instance, nothing was published before the 1840 in this sense).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Books containing art were published since the Guttenberg; and sold, because books are published in order to be sold. However, the main concern of modern copyright law is only the exclusive right to commercial distribution of their contemporary photo-reproductions. No uploads of copyright protected art are allowed in Commons. A. Kupicki (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not since Guttenberg that books with art were published. There was no mean to reproduce art before the middle of XIX century, it eas impossible to print a book with images of paintings in some museum. It is pretty difficult to verify the work of museum administration in the 1930s and 1940s. We can't know if the museum sold any reproductions or catalogues. We can't control if the museum allowed photography and if any photograph made a photo and published it. We have no idea if any newspaper of the world used a photo of this painting to illustrate an article about national exhibition. Of course, you can check it if you want. Look for newspaper archives of the 1930s and 1940s and check all newspapers, check all the photo archives to find out if any photgraph deposed his photo of this painting, look in the National Library if this museum published any catalogues. Probably in a few months you will have a result. Congratulations, you have undeleted one painting of one artist. You have still thousands of similar cases to prove.

This is just to prove that if a public display is not enough to be considered «published», we have a new perfect argument for copyright trolls. Even if it's a perfect PD (author died, say, in 1930s) you still can delete almost any image. It is especially perfect for architecture and sculpture: you don't even need FOP issues, you can just ask to give the date when a building was published. If not, you can state that you suppose the worst case and the building is still copyrighted as it was published 29,9 years by your uncle's father-in-law, and so you can delete almost every non-literary work by authors dead between 1916 and 1946 ((2001-URAA=1996)-50 years-30 years).

I don't think we need this kind of trolling. We are sure this painting was already publicly displayed before author's death, and this clause is to protect posthumously published works which were unknown before author's death and not to search publications of the buildings... — NickK (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

А может стоит обсуждать советское авторское право на русском? Во-первых не будет трудностей перевода, во вторых больше участников поучаствуют в дискуссии.--Anatoliy (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that most participants in this discussion don't speak Russian, so that would cause problems for other people instead. For example, I had to use Google Translate in order to decipher your message. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone can only participate in Russian, please do so -- we can use Google Translate, or perhaps someone who knows both languages can translate certain sections if they are critical. I think the earlier version of the Ukraine law is here (in Ukrainian). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Plakat1 klein.jpg / File:Plakat2 klein.jpg

do these yarn bombing pictures need permission by the artist? [3] -- Cherubino (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

now {OTRS pending} -- 78.51.144.209 15:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Vanuatu

This document tells that Vanuatu will join WCT on 2 March 2012 and en:List of parties to international copyright agreements tells that Vanuatu currently isn't a member of any copyright treaty, so WCT will be the first one and so I assume that 2 March 2012 will be the URAA date for Vanuatu. I have updated en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights with this information, but I am uncertain of the length of the copyright term in Vanuatu. Some hidden text in the Wikipedia guideline points at this document which (according to the hidden text) states that the term is 50 years p.m.a., but the hidden text also claims that the law apparently doesn't apply yet. According to the law document, the law applies since 8 February 2011. Does anyone know if this is correct or if it was for some unknown reason delayed further? It would be nice to have accurate information in the Wikipedia guideline since I presume that both Commons and Wikipedia users trying to find out the US copyright status of a work will use that table for determining URAA restorations. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Where does it say they are joining the WCT? That link says they are joining the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, but that is separate from the WIPO Copyright Treaty. For example, Iran is a member of that treaty (see here);I think they participate in worldwide trademarks but have not signed any copyright treaties. Vanuatu is listed there with the date you cite, but they are not present on the WCT list. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, according to this, that 2000 act was finally published in the Government Gazette and came into force a year ago (February 8, 2011). So if they have joined an international treaty or not, they do have their own copyright law now. It's on WIPO's site here. Yes, 50pma. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Icelandic currency

COM:Currency#Iceland and {{Icelandic currency}} contradict each other. Which one is correct? I'm not sure if this is free enough. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently the template is correct. The copyright provisions of the Icelandic National Bank state that
  • Reproductions of notes may be used to illustrated printed matter, booklets, advertisements and the like, but all available measures must be taken to ensure that such reproductions are not mistaken for real notes.
  • To prevent conceivable misuse, the Central Bank recommends that reproductions of notes which are used for advertising purposes should be scaled either to no more than half the size or at least twice the size of a real note. Only up to one-third of a note should be shown if it is in actual size. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Is that a limitation to reproductions on paper (printed matters, booklets and the like) unless it is an advertisement? What about reproductions on the Internet? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That's a good question since "the following principles apply to the use of such pictorial material in printed matter". They have another term there: "If the intention is to publish pictures of banknotes, for example for educational purposes, in a manner that is not in keeping with these guidelines, written permission shall be sought from the Central Bank with a normal period of notice." So maybe the WMF or some Commons administrator should ask them for permission? De728631 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It does sound like they are claiming protection under moral rights (which they explicitly mention) and also, obviously, anything which may be construed as counterfeiting, but it does not seem as though they are relying on the regular economic right. It seems like the restrictions are primarily about printed versions, though that could apply to a printed version of an encyclopedia article; as printed it sounds like the illustrations should not approach the regular note size. We should probably move the text of some of the restrictions onto the tag. From what I see, the tag was added in 2007 with little change since (wrong formatting for usual copyright tags), and the section on COM:Currency was added without comment in 2008 and not changed since. I think I'd say the tag is correct. Carl Lindberg (talk)

Don't we have to distinguish between copyright rules and rules concerning reuse of images of currency? This is a common feature of many countries. For example, in Singapore copyright in currency notes and coins belongs to the Government, but there are legal provisions allowing limited reproduction of images of currency not dissimilar to the Icelandic ones. The existence of the latter rules does not change the fact that the currency designs are copyrighted as engravings or other artistic works. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly -- they mention the copyright act explicitly though, and really only bring up the moral rights aspects as restricting allowed use, plus of course avoiding any semblance of counterfeiting. I think copyright still exists, but this does appear to be permission to use it even commercially provided that moral rights are not violated. It may not be explicitly irrevocable, but overall it seems to me they are mindful of the copyright when giving this permission. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the statement indicates that reproductions of Icelandic currency are sufficiently free for uploading to the Commons, for at least the following reasons:

1. The statement says: "The following principles apply to the use of such pictorial material in printed matter". As Stefan4 and De728631 pointed out, the statement may not cover the use of material on the Internet.
2. The statement also says: "Attention is drawn to the fact that it is prohibited to alter the pictorial matter of Icelandic banknotes and make derogatory reproductions of them, in print or in broadcasting media. This contravenes the reputation of the author of the pictorial material on the banknotes, cf. the provisions of the current Copyright Act." Does this not contravene our policy that content must be freely modifiable?

By the way, if the currency designs appear in Icelandic acts, regulations, administrative provisions or other official documents, then it may be that they are not copyrighted: see Article 9. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
The statement that restricts modifiability is more or less the one that is in the law of most EU countries (note that the restriction is not introduced here, the text seems to be only a reminder). The restriction is effective regardless of any licence (at least in Finland and Sweden), unless scope of the restriction of the restriction ;-) is defined. I think Commons accepts the moral rights restrictions. --LPfi (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

When you say that we "accept" it, do you mean that restrictions in the nature of moral rights don't prevent us from hosting the material in the Commons? In any case, unless Article 9 of the Icelandic copyright law applies, the general position is that copyright only expires 70 years p.m.a. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it means that Commons does not delete due to restrictions base on moral rights. German freedom-of-panorama photos come with very similar restrictions, as do the Creative Commons licenses themselves. I'm not sure this is covered under Article 9 -- doubt it, myself -- but these seem like they are being licensed as freely as possible, provided that moral rights are not violated, and counterfeiting laws aren't violated. It would seem that printed matter is the most liable for counterfeiting issues so that is what they concentrate on, but the final statement says "These guidelines provide advertisers with many possibilities for using the pictorial material of banknotes in a normal manner" so it would seems as though they are trying to license rights as much as they possibly can. The rules are fully cognizant of their Copyright Act, as it invokes the moral rights sections, but (in what seems to be a notable omission) do not seem to make any real claims under the economic rights, unless possibly they could intrude into counterfeiting areas. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dimension of derivative works

Commons:Derivative works seems to make some distinction 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional objects, and how copyright law apply to them. What though, briefly, is this difference? Is this photo a derivative work that would be copyrighted? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• By photographing a 3-dimensional object you create a new 2-D object, the photograph, which is copyrighted to you. However, the sculptor or creator of the object shown in the photo still hold their own copyrights for their work of art. I.e. to publish such a photograph of a copyrighted work, either 2-D or 3-D, you need the original creator's permission. And since toys are legally a form of art and that LEGO spaceshuttle looks very much like a pre-fabricated kit it is most like copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Toys are often copyrighted, and yes, photos of toys have been ruled derivative works in the U.S. Something like Lego can be more interesting... they can't copyright all possible works made of Legos; those are works of the person putting them together, technically. But for kits made to go together like that... it may well be. Lego has registered U.S. copyrights for lots of their sets. I don't see an entry for that specific one offhand though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:LEGO Space Shuttle Discovery with Hubble Space Telescope 7470 - 2003.jpg De728631 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So should a lot of photos in Category:Barbie dolls be proposed for deletion? Photos of cars on the street are fine. What about photos of toy cars? The NASA one is a bit similar: you can take a photo of a NASA spaceship if you're close to it. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Interesting. Yes, according to Commons:Derivative works, action figures, like Barbie dolls, are "generally copyrighted as works of fine art". Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • OK. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Barbie dolls. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Lex loci protectionis

In a discussion on English Wikipedia about a coin with an unknown photographer, it turned out that German Wikipedia is apparently storing a lot of files made by various governments, claiming that lex loci protectionis makes those files free in Germany, Austria and Switzerland because works made by the governments of Germany, Austria and Switzerland are free in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Is this really a correct interpretation of the law? It sounds strange considering that you are obliged to provide protection for foreign works under the Berne Convention. Using the same arguments, it would mean that all works made by any federal government would be free in the United States since works made by the local US federal government are free in the United States. This would mean that {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} could be removed from e.g. some Canadian crown copyright files. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons is not Wikipedia, they make their own decisions on German Wikipedia. Since one could argue that primary audience of German Wikipedia is in Germany and not in the US, they have more chance to get away with working closer with German interpretation of the law than with the US; this is not an option here. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Fred Wolf logo.svg

The image File:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Fred Wolf logo.svg was recently uploaded on Commons with the PD-text tag. However, my understanding is that this would not be correct for this image, because it isn't just text. Is this image truly PD-text? - SudoGhost (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it's gone now, so the discussion will have to shift to whether it's OK to restore it. It was a very splendidly created SVG, someone must have put a lot of work into it. The site it came from (http://all-free-download.com/free-vector/vector-logo/turtles_73278.html) has a legal notice on it, but that might be just automatically generated. Soap (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Colombian money

Are photos of Colombian pesos allowed here? Category:Money of Colombia with subcategories contains a lot of images (many of them being recent issues), but there is no entry for Colombia at COM:Currency. COM:L#Colombia states that if the copyright holder is "an official entity or any public institution", the term is 50 years which to me suggests that the images are not OK. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, a similar discussion regarding Madagascar is currently ongoing at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MADBANK.png. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. Unless we get any clarity, I assume that all of the recent ones will have to be proposed for deletion, but I wanted to ask here first in case anyone knows anything. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Vatican City

Does anyone know what copyright laws the Vatican City State has? Is the country just mirroring the Italian laws, or do the laws differ in some way? I came across File:Vaticano1 wiki.jpg by it:Pier Luigi Nervi and if it had been in Italy, I would have reported it for deletion because of lack of freedom of panorama, but since it is in the Vatican City State, I'm not so sure. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama#Vatican City (Holy See). -- Asclepias (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network.jpg

I hope this is ineligible for copyrights, isn't it? The owner tagged the image with CC license, but I changed it to reflect the situation. What do you think? Should there be SVG logo? --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just text. Not sufficiently original for copyright, so your edit was spot on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Newstraitstimes new.jpg and File:New Straits Times.png

Are these images eligible for copyrights in Malaysia? They already do not pass threshold of originality in the US. (w:File:New Straits Times.png and w:File:Newstraitstimes new.jpg) --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

They look fine to me. They are purely text without any graphics. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does the law say about originality threshold? --George Ho (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Still reading http://www.commonlii.org/my/journals/JMCL/2004/2.html --George Ho (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that no one knows what the threshold of originality is like in Malaysia. They look ineligible for copyright in the United States but are most likely eligible for copyright in the United Kingdom. Since Malaysia is a former British colony, it is likely that a lot of copyright laws are similar to those in the United Kingdom, so I see a substantial risk that the logos might be copyrighted in Malaysia. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.myipo.gov.my/acts/Copyright.pdf should do the trick. Find "sufficient" and see if these logos are sufficient enough to qualify for copyright protection in Malaysia. --George Ho (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Also, Google Books can do the work. --George Ho (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It says: "A literary, musical or artistic work shall not be eligible for copyright unless sufficient effort has been expended to make the work original in character". All copyright laws have similar statements. The problem is that "sufficient effort" is interpreted differently in different countries, so the source you provided does not contain enough information. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If I were discussing Commons:Threshold of originality, should this be discussed here or "Village pump (proposal)". --George Ho (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeet Kune Do

File:JKD.svg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

File:Simbolo JKD.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

File:JeetKuneDo.svg is found to be ineligible for copyrights. Are above images ineligible, as well? --George Ho (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• File:JKD.svg is probably ineligible for copyright (standard font, ancient symbols). The other two files use fonts which may be seen as calligraphic. This is usually a problem in East Asia, so those might not be ineligible for copyright in the source country. Still, the font looks less calligraphic than other fonts, so they might be fine, although I'm not sure. Certainly ineligible for copyright in countries not copyrighting calligraphy (such as the United States), though. An SVG file might additionally get a literary copyright, at least if you edit the source code manually. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done. Made changes to reflect that. --George Ho (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)