Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Willi Neubert murals

I have photographs of the Willi Neubert murals surrounding the old Pressecafe of the current http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haus_des_Berliner_Verlages. These murals have now been covered by advertising. Is it OK to release these photos into the public domain? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I took these photos myself in August 1977.GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
According to Template:FoP-Germany you should be able to upload them here. You can select any license you wish for your photographs of them. See: Commons:Choosing a license.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If I uploaded them to Commons, would somebody else take care of attaching them to the proper article or articles? GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
We don't have articles at commons. I can check English Wikipedia articles. Others may volunteer to check other languages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't find your images in Category:Willi Neubert or in your uploads.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Anatomical drawings as derivative works?

Am trying to suss out the way that the no-derivative-works policy applies to something like anatomical drawings— inasmuch as an anatomical drawing is a drawing of a non-copyrightable "thing", a real-world object, one not unlike a complex machine, can any anatomical drawing technically be considered a derivative work of any other? Here is an example:

An image here from the Rutgers University website, created in 2004: http://avery.rutgers.edu/WSSP/StudentScholars/project/introduction/anatomyLarge.gif

Four years later, a Wikimedia editor uploads an image of the same animal: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C_elegans_anatomy.png

The second image is of much lower quality, and contains technical inaccuracies, but that is beside the point: the second image is pretty clearly "derived" from the first— anyone examining the images in detail will quickly come to this conclusion. But the image is of a simple worm, and its anatomy is always going to be more or less the same... Or is it? If it is, then there is no artistic claim that can be made on an anatomical drawing because it is just a rendition (or slavish reproduction) of something which is not copyrightable. Having said that, if I were the person who created image #1 and I saw image #2 on the Wikimedia website, I would immediately cry, "Foul!" and demand that the [crappy] reproduction of my own work be deleted (again, its crappiness being technically irrelevant).

Bottom line: if it is "just" an anatomical drawing of something, can that drawing- however simple— be copyrighted? Could someone parse this for me? Thank you.

Oh, and once it's been parsed, I think it would be really handy if the result could be added to the Wikimedia list of examples of what is and what is not considered a derivative work (maybe under "Anatomical drawings" or "Copies of anatomical drawings" or some such, yes?) KDS444 (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For copyright protection to extend to a derivative work, “the additional matter injected in a prior work, or the manner of rearranging or otherwise transforming a prior work, must constitute more than a minimal contribution.”
We need to find the legislation that document refers to, and then put a direct link to it, along with an explanation into the commons:derivative page, stop people getting so confused. There seem to be a gazillion people who are confused when the two concepts of de minimus and derivative mix. Penyulap 07:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I very much doubt if anatomical drawings can ever be considered as uncopyrightable. The so-called "simplicity" of the subject-matter needs to be carefully considered. If it is truly simple, like a square, then I'd agree that if someone else made a copy of that square in a drawing (same length and width), since the original simple subject-matter is not copyrightable, neither is the derivative drawing of the square. However, even though a biological entity such as a cell or an amoeba is "simple" in the sense that it is not a complex creature, there are an infinite number of ways in which the entity and its parts can be rendered artistically. For example, let's say one is making a drawing of the anatomy of Paramecium which is a slipper-shaped single-celled protozoan. One can draw the cell with its long axis oriented horizontally, vertically or at 45° to the horizontal on the paper, and can draw the organelles inside the cell in various places. Thus, the simplicity of the creature in no way suggests that drawings of the creature cannot be copyrightable. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Questionable Flickr image

Do others agree that this image is questionable? It's on a Flickr account with a clear POV and while there's nothing wrong with that, it's not clear to me who they are or how they took these old photos. I also don't get why it's listed as PD Sri Lanka as it doesn't seem to fit anywhere. While the uploader seems to have had some experience with Sri Lankan copyright, they could still be mistaken and have been inactive since 2011 File:Black July 1983 Sri Lankan Policeman.jpg. If people agree, I guess the Flick account should be added to the Flickrwashing list? Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the uploader ?
Digital Nikon multi-megapixel cameras weren't popular in the 80's ;)
Digital Nikon multi-megapixel cameras aren't so popular in Sri Lanka ;)
there is a POV that 80's music was the best, but commons doesn't give a flying fashion trend about POV's. Penyulap 18:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I removed both licenses and set the bot to review the flickr one. It seems the flickr user does have many images from the time and place so was probably there to take them with his Brownie.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The brownie is a bit of a 'name brand'. I would expect there'd be a wide selection of nameless 'focus-free' film cameras around at the time. There were so many cheap models of camera back then. Penyulap 07:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black July 1983 Sri Lankan Policeman.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation Hush

File:Hush2.jpeg
The Yser front in 1917

Uploaded this diagram made by a mate but didn't know what licence category to use, then found that it would be deleted in 7 days. Advice please on a licence category if there is one and how to apply it, same for wiki categories. Please note that the advice pages are not written for someone who needs a step by step description so are no help. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

See: Commons:Choosing a license and Commons:OTRS. It would probably be easiest if he created an account and uploaded it himself. OTRS can be backlogged because it is volunteer and short-handed. I can see your point about the help pages. If your friend does decide to save time by creating an account then he could probably select the 'upload new version of this file' below the thumbnails in the edit history. Have him leave an edit summary: "Re-uploaded by copyright holder account" or something similar. See: Commons:First steps if you haven't already. I will see if I can get the image in some categories for you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Canoe, that's most helpful. User talk:Keith-264 left details here.Keith-264 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You are very welcome.
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

wellcome images & CC BY-NC 2.0 UK

Wellcome Images uses this license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/ Can I upload an image I found from their library? If I can, what should I do in the Upload Wizard Release rights section? --Custoo (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say no. We need to allow commercial use at commons. See:Template:Cc-by-nc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Octacube structure image

This is a Wiki image, not yet on Commons, but like the get the rights input (hopefully User:Clindberg will comment). And I'm not trying to go after the image...more to figure out how to make triple sure it is OK, or if we need some better description or OTRS or such:

1. Who took the pic and have they released it? (Not clear if it was MatSci or the Ocneanu or Penn State.) what do we need in description?

2. From reading here, it seems that Ocneanu designed the structure (he had it fabricated, but he made detailed drawings for it to be machined). Do we have any panorama issues with the artwork itself? (and how the heck do we ever have photos of modern sculptures?) Do we need to go fair use on this?

3. Ocneany also mentions "copyrighting" the project itself (not sure if you can copyright a projection, but there's a claim about it in the PSU article. Thoughts on that issue?

TCO (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems the uploader may have used the subject's camera since the camera owner is in the photo. The creator of the sculpture I would say is Mr. Ocneanu so normally he would need to release image rights of it. I think if a sculptor sends his clay work to a foundry then even though he didn't create a bronze version he is still rights holder. See: Commons:FOP#United_States. An email to Mr. Ocneanu probably wouldn't hurt to clear it up. He may not be aware of FOP even. I know I wouldn't take it to deletion review but others may. For modern sculptures I created User:Canoe1967/Sculptors that Mr. Ocneanu may wish to OTRS an email for.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I found the good professor's email. http://www.psu.edu/search/people/Ocneanu --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I sent an email.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
1. It sounds like the uploader took the picture. Normally that person would be the copyright holder, unless the pictured person was really the one who determined what was in the scene, angle, etc., in which case they would be the owner of the copyright. From the image description, it sounds like the uploader properly licensed it. If the uploader was acting as an employee of Penn State (i.e. the photo was intended for school archives or something), then the school might be the copyright owner of the photo.
2./3. Yes, the sculpture is copyrighted, and yes the photograph is a derivative work. For photos of modern sculptures, yes we need to go fair use unless there is also permission from the copyright owner of the sculpture. Given the description (being taken with the sculpture copyright owner's camera) there was a fair amount of consent involved, so it's not cut and dry. It looks like it was uploaded two years after being taken though, so it wasn't done immediately. It's certainly quite possible it's OK, and I'm not sure I'd nominate for review either, but further clarification would definitely be better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The email I sent was to the good professor's Pen State address. He may not see it until back from holidays. He may not be aware of FOP lacking in the US but I linked to that issue in the email. I don't think we are in a hurry unless he gets upset and asks us to remove the image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Threshold level

Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cryptome_logo.jpg okay for Template:PD-textlogo or does the shadow count as creative enough for protection in USA?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm half thinking you're asking as a prank. Shadows are not original.
It's a .5 second job that any software will do for you.


the entire logo can be written precisely in wiki markup in fact. Penyulap
Thanks Pen. I may have time next month to move it from en:wp to commons. Are we better off with .svg? In that case someone from graphics lab can recreate one here before we delete the one over there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
you could look at how often the image (article) is viewed, it may not be worth it. Or it can be done in markup.
CRYPTOME

This is not an image, this is text

I don't know if that's it or not, can't be bothered comparing much, but yes, I'd just copy it to commons and look at page-views, probably like 500 a day or something would be worth it, most of the images on commons are jpg and png. Penyulap 14:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Chinese media CC-by

Are works by any news media with country of origin China CC-by according to this law? See: Chinese copyright law Chapter I, Section 4 Limitations on Rights, article 22 "In the following cases, a work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon: , (4): reprinting by newspapers or periodicals or other media, or rebroadcasting by radio stations or television stations or other media, of the current event article s on the issues of politics, economy and religion, which have been published by other newspapers, periodicals, radio stations or television stations or other media, except where the author has declared that publication or broadcasting is not permitted;" --Canoe1967 (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

They are not CC-by even if such a law exists. It can be CC-by only if voluntary licensed under such terms (for instance, Chinese laws have no force in USA or any other country). In addition CC-by allows anybody to use the media licensed under it for any purpose, not only for reprinting or broadcasting. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that it may be like the US-Gov public domain law. "Any works created by media about current events can be re-used provided there is attribution" type thing. Mandatory CC-by as opposed to mandatory PD in the US.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
That subarticle seems to allow only reprinting and rebroadcasting of news articles, not modification, so it doesn't provide enough freedom to be in scope. --Avenue (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
"reprinting by newspapers or periodicals or other media" is not free, its fair use for the media, but not free use by anyone for every purpose. --Martin H. (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand the above points. I was reading 'other media' as 'other medium', which would include coffee cups and posters, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of costume used by Finnish-speaking Romani people

Is the costume at this page a work of art above the threshold of originality? Going to visit the museum exhibition where that costume is being exhibited. /á(!) 15:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. There have been a couple of cases in Sweden where courts have ruled that the copyright to clothes belongs to the tailor or designer. Finnish copyright law is similar to Swedish copyright law in many aspects, so this might also be the case in Finland. Clothes are not copyrightable in a lot of other countries (such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan) because those countries don't provide copyright protection for utilitarian objects. This would require a careful evaluation of the Finnish copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The Finnish copyright law is a lot more simple than most copyright laws. It just says: "Works of arts, for example: -- art craft -- are copyrighted." Utilitarian objects are not mentioned at all. Is it really so in some countries that clothes that are art aren't copyrighted? /á(!) 19:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
See for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12910683 where it says that a Star Wars Stormtrooper helmet isn't copyrightable in the United Kingdom because it is utilitarian. An US court thought that the helmet wasn't utilitarian, though, so the helmet is copyrighted in the United States. See COM:UA. Lots of European countries are different and don't care whether an item is utilitarian or not and grant copyright protection for anything. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

PD US Gov

File:Snowden US Embassy Caracas.jpg The license uses the linked phrase "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." Should we change the wording to 'created by'? The 'prepared' document contains two images that may not have been 'created' by the feds.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I expect that the photos may have been a bit like passport photos where somebody else takes it. If it was a mugshot, then you can say it's a gov employee, if he had to attach the photos to an application himself then it's harder to sa. The us gov no doubt takes nothing as trivial as copyright into account when it wants to copy someone elses work as it always sees itself as above the law. So we should work out who holds the copyright of the image. Penyulap 13:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
We now have a free licensed image due to the kindness of Laura Poitras. I don't think these passport photos are needed in that case. We should change the wording in Template:PD-USGov to save confusion for future uploads. 'Prepared by' should be changed to 'created by'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The template correctly uses the language of the definition in the Copyright Act (section 101) : "A 'work of the United States Government' is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." (The Copyright Act also uses similar language in another place in the same section: "A 'work made for hire' is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment (...)") In discussions on Commons, one can of course paraphrase informally, or use words such as "made" or "created", if one thinks it's easier or wants to give interpretations, but the template should in objectivity continue to use the actual wording. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Edward Snowden (a).gif

Yes I agree it is a good change to make. Bravo on asking permission, and a BIG thank you Laura Poitras. I was racking my brain to work out a way to draw Mr Snowden for the articles. I'm not very good with faces, and we don't really have a searchable database of component images like an identity-kit sort of thing to use as a starting point. I had thought to make a simple line drawing as best I can, an original caricature, and then trying to disguise how very bad it would inevitably be by pimping it with an animation like this and some matrix-like effects and so on. That is not shown as they were never done, and don't need to be now! because we have permission from Laura thanks to you both. :) I should get some books and learn how to draw, as I can only copy, like this. Penyulap 16:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Copyright status of crime prevention posters from the NYPD?

Specifically interested in this image, which is an official work from the New York City police department: http://imgur.com/8NNdZYi source: http://news.yahoo.com/evil-spirit-scam-plagues-asian-immigrants-nyc-175711917.html

I am assuming that because I'm not finding a template it's off limits, but I thought I'd ask, just in case it's ever come up before. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This needs a free license by the copyright holder as it's not in the public domain. Official works from the US are only in the public domain if created by a federal authority or by some non-federal government units as listed in Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal). AFAIK, the state of New York has no such PD regulations. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I figured as much, but thought I'd ask. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we need a template for New Mexico as well? http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/info/14-3NMSA.pdf was cited in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill Gates mugshot.png.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I would assume that this is the same with lots of pre-Berne public records from all states: most of them were probably distributed by the copyright holder without copyright notice. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually no. The document was quoted as stating that public records created by the State of NM are public domain similar to the feds, CA, and FLA.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

FOP USA

File:EdwardSnowdenMural.jpg. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

imho not ok --Isderion (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. It looks more like a mural than illegal graffiti to me. --Avenue (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Mozilla Public License 2.0 and templates

Hello. Template changes are needed because of Mozilla Public License 2.0. Please see Template:MTL/doc.

Templates affected (at least by the need to mention that 2.0 exists):

  • {{MPL}} — 1.1;
  • {{MTL}} — “Mozilla tri-license”, i.e. MPL 1.1 / GPL 2+ / LGPL 2.1+; MPL 2.0 is not a tri-license; it can be compatible with the “secondary licenses” (GPL 2+, LGPL 2.1+, AGPL 3+) or incompatible with them;
  • {{FirefoxWiki}} — uses MTL; Firefox is now licensed under MPL 2.0;
  • {{MPL2}} and {{MPL-2.0}} — first MPL 2.0 templates, not mentioning the “secondary license” conditions.

--AVRS (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What if a Getty Images photographer gives his own photos free license on Flickr?

Please see this deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dahntay Jones dunk.jpg as well as similar discussions on its derivative images as well as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rodrigue Beaubois layup over Kevin Seraphin.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darren Collison layup vs Kobe Bryant.jpg. This is because NBA photographer Danny Bollinger uploaded these photos in his own flickr account and gave the photos CC-BY licenses. However, another user nominated them for deletion because he thinks Getty Images has the final say with copyright. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the photographer's contract with Getty. If he transferred copyright to them, then he would probably be in the wrong to upload them to Flickr and claim they're CC-licensed. However, if he merely granted Getty a non-exclusive licence, then he can do whatever he wants with the photos. The best way of resolving the issue would be to write to Getty and to the photographer asking each to clarify who holds the copyright, and how the images are licensed. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. If the photos were collected as part of a contract between the photographer and Getty, then, as a "work for hire", their copyright is now solely owned by Getty and the author has no further right to release the images anywhere for any purpose. In any other context, though, as long as money did not change hands, the original photographer remains the copyright holder and he/ she may do with his/ her work as he/ she pleases, including releasing the images to Getty and releasing them independently on Flickr. KDS444 (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
From the Flickr page for File:Darren Collison layup vs Kobe Bryant.jpg (line breaks added):
NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph,
User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.
Mandatory Copyright Notice: Copyright 2012 NBAE (Photo by Danny Bollinger/NBAE via Getty Images).  
So the copyright is held by NBAE, presumably as Bollinger's employer. Appearance on Flickr with an attribution license could be a screw-up or could be exactly what was intended but we should respect the stated attribution. I have added it for this particular image. Dankarl (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I would have thought both the Flickrreview bot and the deletion nomination would have caught this - unless perhaps it is a new addition on the Flickr page. Dankarl (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
But if you actually read the Getty Images License Agreement you'll see it's a non-free licence incompatible with CC-BY. See specifically §10.5. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
According to the Flickr page, the copyright is held by NBAE. Aside from the photographer's name, this is probably the most solid piece of information we have about this image. If Getty Images License Agreement is the license meant by the note on the Flickr page, then we have conflicting licenses and can't host it. Since the Flickr page does not actually link to license text, this deserves a bit more investigation. Dankarl (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
He is still the photographer and rights holder though. He has licensed it with CC and we uploaded it. If he made an error and didn't want to license it with CC then we may be able to do a 'courtesy' delete for him. If license errors are made by rights holders we shouldn't flinch every time we think they may have sold all of their rights. If he had then Getty doesn't need to insist on having him in the credit line at all. If we had taken the image from Getty then we would follow that NBA clause. The CC license doesn't have that clause in Flickr so we can ignore it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by "rights holder"? Only one entity can hold the copyright at any given time; if NBAE currently does, then the photographer doesn't. It's therefore NBAE and not the photographer who gets to dictate the licence terms. It's possible that the photographer once held the copyright, and licensed the photograph under CC-BY before transferring copyright to the NBAE; likewise it is possible that NBAE has always been the copyright holder and has dual-licensed the photograph under CC-BY and the highly restrictive proprietary Getty licence. However, both of these scenarios are exceedingly unlikely, bordering on ludicrous, and we have no evidence to prove them anyway. It's more plausible that the photographer has uploaded the image to Flickr in ignorance or defiance of his contract with NBAE. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
We cannot assume that the photographer was an employee or had a contract to sign away all of his rights to NBA or Getty. As the photographer is normally the rights holder then any later deals he made with NBA or Getty shouldn't matter. We should take his word as the normal and original rights holder that he has not erred on the license. If Getty or the NBA think they have a case then they should bring it up with WMF and the photographer. We found images licensed on Flickr and uploaded them as per normal. Making assumptions the photographer is not the rights holder is not the way it works here. If he did err then he could email or contact us for DCMA or a 'courtesy' delete. Still not up to us to delete images licensed correctly on Flickr without evidence and only assumptions and conjecture.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
We are not "assuming" the photographer is not the rights holder, it says so on his Flickr page. NBAE may have intended to dual-license the images, or the CC-By could be a mistake, or they could have intended to change licenses (in either direction since we do not know history). I think it very unlikely that the postings are unauthorized, but we can't rule that possibility out either. CC license requires attribution as the license granter specifies and "Mandatory Copyright Notice: Copyright 2012 NBAE (Photo by Danny Bollinger/NBAE via Getty Images)" is difficult to ignore in this context. Dankarl (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Has anybody checked whether the images are in fact on Getty? Yet another possibility is that the lines, or at least the Getty ref are boilerplate included by mistake. I do not see a "license thru Getty" link on the page. Does Flickr still have such links post redesign? Dankarl (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The "Mandatory Copyright Notice: Copyright 2012 NBAE (Photo by Danny Bollinger/NBAE via Getty Images)" is probably the required attribution for the CC license. No where does it say that NBA/Getty own any copyrights. They have the right to license it for the photographer and take a % but the photographer is still the rights holder.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Usually Copyright 2012 NBAE on a single work would mean NBAE is the copyright holder (Collective works are sometimes nominally copyright by the publisher with authors retaining their own copyright). Danny Bollinger/NBAE pretty much indicates a work for hire, just as /AP or /New York Times on a byline would. The two together makes it hard to imagine otherwise. Remember we are talking US law. Dankarl (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The section title itself says "what if" and others use terms like "usually", "probably", "indicates", etc. What we do know is that the photographer has licensed it with CC and a normal attribution that could just be a copy/paste from the Getty site. Anything about his contract with them is not shown at all. He may be a freelancer who offers 'rights managed' images to both of them. Assuming that he is not the rights holder or that he is a 'work for hire' are just broad assumptions. If he were to change the Flickr license or the parties involved were to contact us then we should only go with normal procedure until then and host the images. Everything else is guesswork.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For that matter, you don't know that the photographer posted those images. It could just as well have been an intern at NBAE or someone who swiped them from the Getty site or elsewhere. You only know that it says that they are photographs he took, copyright NBAE. That's plain English.
We have generally deleted when there are conflicting license terms that could have the effect of making the images non-free.Dankarl (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Every image I checked is on the Getty website. See my comment here. Zagalejo (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that disclaimer applies to the NBAE images in question. Those licensing terms are for Flickr members who are uploading original works who want Getty to distribute the images. Danny Bollinger is uploading images whose rights are already managed and licenses sold by NBAE/Getty Images. Images for sale by Getty prior to upload to Flickr should NOT be kept on Commons Ytoyoda (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, looking at the photo's page on gettyimages.com, I don't see how there can be much ambiguity - these images are non-free, for-sale agency photos. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I think he is a free lancer for NBAE and therefore retains copyright. If you look at his website: http://www.dannybollinger.com/ he doesn't mention being a full time employee of the NBAE. He therefore would retain copyright on images taken at games that NBAE uses. If they are hosted by NBAE/Getty then they may want that attribution for them. He probably put the same attribution on his Flickr site to save confusion by re-users. We shouldn't make the assumption that the photographer has signed away all of his rights if he has licensed them with CC-by. According to Getty they don't buy the copyright just have a contract to re-distribute and pay the rights holders %.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.gettyimages.ca/Search/Search.aspx?assettype=image&artist=Danny+Bollinger# is Mr. Bollinger's profile page at Getty. The 'rights managed' tickbox is checked which means Getty just manages his images for mutual income. Exclusive rights by Getty would be very rare and very expensive. Full time Getty photographers may have that type where the photographer can't license them on their own and go a against their Getty employee contract. He also has many other images at Getty that aren't NBAE so that casts more doubt that he works for NBAE. Basically he is a free lancer that can license his images any way he wishes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
"Rights managed" is a fancy way of saying, "You'll pay royalties on these images based on usage, medium, regions and circulation size". Also, not knowing the specifics of Bollinger's employment but based on my understanding of stock images and my own experience with freelancing, the work you do as a freelance contractor belongs to the employer, so that's probably neither here nor there. The basic rule of thumb is that photographs taken at NBA games under the NBAE licensing belongs, by default, to Getty Images. Anyway, there are a LOT of assumptions in your responses that make my Occam senses tingly. It seems more likely that he's sharing the photographs he's taken, some under Getty contract, some not, but like a lot of Flickr users, neglecting to change the licensing for different uploads. Especially given the licensing information in the EXIF data and at gettyimages.com, I don't see why we should stray from the SOP of going with other available copyright information when in conflict with the Flickr license. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
We aren't "straying" from SOP. We have many images from Flickr that have CC and Getty licenses. Our SOP has always been that the photographer is the copyright holder. If he changes his license on Flickr and then Getty or NBAE contact WMF with a DCMA takedown notice then they will remove the images through an office action. We don't go by another user's "understanding of stock images" and "experience with freelancing". We go with our policies and guidelines.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you're conflating the Getty-licensed images on Flickr with images that are published by Getty. Plus, we have an entire blacklist of Flickr users who post agency photos because copyright owners don't have the manhours/willingness to issue takedown notices, and copyvio images end up staying on Flickr. When there's reasonable evidence that an image belongs to Getty Images or other publishers, we remove them from Commons, regardless of how Flickr users license them. I don't see why we shouldn't treat this as an (unintentional) Flickrwashing of images owned by the publishers, because you know, they're the publishers and Getty/NBAE are clearly credited as such. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't know how you can call this Flickr washing when the photographer uploaded his own image. There is no "reasonable evidence" that the copyright belongs to anyone except the photographer. Getty/NBAE may have published it but that doesn't mean they own the copyright. File:1960s Batmobile (FMC).jpg may be Flickr washing by Ford. They have since changed the license at Flickr. If the photographer, Jennifer Graylock, contacts WMF then they will probably remove it. If Jennifer had uploaded it to her Flickr account would you want it deleted because you believe Ford is the copyright holder? You are the one making all the assumptions that others own the rights to images besides the photographers. If there are other rights holders that is between them and the photographer. The SOP is photographers own the copyright, we upload from photographer sites, if the photographer erred then they or the rights holder contact WMF. We don't delete images on the assumptions you are making.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's Flickrwashing (and I don't imply any malice, just oversight) if a non-free image is licensed as a non-rights managed image. I think the reasonable evidence is on gettyimages.com, where it says Mandatory Copyright Notice: Copyright 2012 NBAE (Photo by Danny Bollinger/NBAE via Getty Images) and USER IS NOT PERMITTED TO DOWNLOAD OR USE IMAGE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL, and where it says "rights managed", meaning Getty Images puts restrictions and charges royalties on usage. How is this different from any agency photo erroneously licensed on Flickr? Ytoyoda (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said before the Flickr page has both licenses. He may have just copy/pasted the license from the Getty site. Those re-using from the Getty site follow that license. .--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
But the point is, the photographs were taken as part of his work with NBAE for publishing through Getty Images, so the photographer doesn't set the licensing terms. And when there are conflicting licenses, it would seem that the one that matches the terms given on gettyimages.com should supercede the one that the user sets when setting up a Flickr account regardless of specific terms of an image. And we don't wait for copyright owners to complain - we proactively remove images that are likely copyrighted. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You continue to make the same assumption that he works for the NBAE. We don't delete images on assumptions. We follow the CC license by the photographer who is the copyright holder. Until someone contacts the WMF it is not our policy to remove images that are correctly licensed on Flickr by the photographer. We can keep repeating ourselves here but for now the images stay.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the conflicting licenses are not the key point here. The main issue is that we have someone uploading a photo to Flickr and saying it is available under a CC-BY license, while admitting that someone else holds the photo's copyright. If they said this while uploading it here, we would insist the license be confirmed by the copyright holder via OTRS. (Failing that, we would delete the photo.) A similar requirement for evidence that the copyright holder (NBAE) has freely licensed the photos should apply here. If that evidence isn't forthcoming, the photos should be deleted.

The conflict between the licenses is really only relevant to judging how likely it is that such evidence will be provided. If we thought this was very likely, this might justify keeping the photos here for some time while we search or ask for that evidence. But the conflicting licenses make me think the opposite - that the photographer has probably messed up, and the copyright holder has probably not freely licensed the photos after all. So there is significant doubt about their licensing status, and according to COM:PRP we should simply delete them. If we later find evidence that the free license is valid, we can always undelete the photos then. --Avenue (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The only "significant doubt" is in the opinions and claimed freelance experience of a few editors. There are no "conflicting licenses" on the photographer's Flickr page. There is only a CC license with an attribution wording that includes Danny Bollinger, NBAE, and Getty, dated 2012. To claim "the photographer has probably messed up" is an assumption. The policy is not to delete images on assumptions and opinions. The policy is to accept a license posted by the photographer as the copyright holder. If he has violated a contract then the policy is to continue to host the images until other rights holders contact WMF. We can keep repeating ourselves here but for now the images stay.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, you are certainly repeating yourself (verbatim in that last sentence). I think we will have to agree to disagree, and wait and see what happens in the various DRs. --Avenue (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent DR results?

So, it seems that two of these pics were deleted ([1], [2]), but the rest were kept ([3] [4], [5], [6]). The central issue was the same throughout all the pics. Zagalejo (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It depends on how the closing admin administers policy. Assume good faith vs precautionary principle. I think assume good faith should be the strongest here because we do not doubt that the photographer took the images. Precaution should not be needed as we have done nothing wrong and should wait for action from WMF or others. If the license changes at Flickr I would vote delete as a courtesy to the photographer in case Getty's lawyers or others try to claim copyright on his works.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The underlying issue may have been the same throughout, but four were closed (as keep) before anyone raised the central issue - the fact that the photos' copyright was held by NBAE, not the photographer. Both the remaining ones were deleted after this issue was raised. That was the essential reason for the differing outcomes here, I think, not the admins' interpretation of policy.
BTW, there was another DR for a photo from that photostream, but taken by a different photographer. This was also recently closed as delete. For me, that tends to confirm that we shouldn't place too much reliance on licensing statements by Bollinger (the first photographer), at least when we can see some contradictory information. --Avenue (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I've now asked the closing admin for the "keeps" to have another look at this. I'm considering nominating at least three more Danny Bollinger photos with an NBAE copyright notice for deletion, depending on what he says. --Avenue (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Has anyone emailed Danny yet and asked WTF? I don't really care enough to because I don't do basketball. As normal procedure we should attempt contact instead of numerous DRs that probably can be sorted with one email.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if someone tried to contact him, but that should be the responsibility of the people who want to keep the images. Zagalejo (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I just sent him an email. Danny, if you want input here just click the edit button at the top of this sub-section. Add your text at the bottom. Preview if you wish and save the page. Beware that your IP address will show up so you may wish to create an account or use a library computer. Don't worry if it looks funny, we can fix the format.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Video containing copyrighted music

A Problem?

Do you think it's a problem that the short video contains an an even shorter part of a copyrighted song? Or do you think that some exception (e.g. Commons:De minimis) applies? Thanks for commenting. --Isderion (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:De_minimis#Germany. I would say it is very minimal being only a 6 second video with cheering and a bad recording of the music. If someone takes it to DR then better translations of the German laws may happen.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I am aware about the German rules about Unwesentliches Beiwerk. Unfortunately I couldn't find more information about videos and music. --Isderion (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)



Libya

COM:CRT#Libya refers to a copyright law from the 1960s. In Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wiki erudito, a user claims that a file isn't copyrighted because of a copyright law from the 1980s. If COM:CRT#Libya is based on an obsolete law, then there might be a lot of errors in the section. Can someone help and verify if there is a law from the 1980s or not? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

According to w:List of parties to international copyright agreements, Libya joined the Berne Convention in 1976. The section COM:CRT#Libya is clearly incompatible with the Berne Convention, so it seems that the section is useless for determining the copyright status of a work in Libya. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Seaorbiter

Hello. I previously uploaded a logo retraced by me but it was apparently too close to the original and was deleted. I completely redid it again and although it is inspired by the original logo I have spent a fair bit of time re-doing it myself and changed the font, colours etc.... The intent is to use it on the French Wikipedia to illustrate the SeaOrbiter project, and consists of typefaces (different than the originals), individual words (modified), slogans, or simple geometric shapes (different than the originals), that i have created to depict / represent closely the original logo, that can be found Here. The original art copyright is believed to belong to the Seaorbiter company or the graphic artist. Can someone please validate I can upload my work. ? It can be found Here (although not as pretty) Thank you. — Ludopedia(Talk) 23:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I had expected to find an image we can't use, but looking at that, and the differences, it's actually surprisingly good. The elements that are the same are very simple, if the craft itself is an image you've drawn yourself then it's not a derivative of the original, and it surely describes the real logo without copying it and so it's useful. Penyulap 00:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the website, it looks a lot like a screenshot, or based upon a screenshot of the 3D animation. I don't think people would let you keep it here. You can generally keep it on the local wikis under fair use though. Penyulap 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback Penyulap. May I quote: "...based upon a screenshot of the 3D animation..." ?? Sorry but (sincerely!) i do not know what you are referring to (since I have not been on the official website for a couple of month) - does not matter digressing here, and for the purpose of not copying it, I prefer not to go on the official site, to be able to stand back from the original works.
So/Anyway, I have redone it again, and the vessel is manually drawn, remodelled in black and white. Would you please be able to validate I can upload my work. It can be found Here. Thank you. (final thoughts about your comment: You mention with the previous version it may have been possible to upload "...keep it on the local wikis under fair use..." on local wiki ?" I do not know how to do that, and am happy to read more, if there is existing literature about it). Face-smile.svg Thanks again — Ludopedia(Talk) 03:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Your welcome, and to upload it to the local wiki, for example, you speak english so with en.wiki as an example, you can take the original logo, you can copy it from their website. Then log in to en.wiki, then upload it here save the image, just say own work and change it later. In license, change everything to {{Non-free promotional|image_has_rationale=yes|image_is_of_living_person=no}} and then in the description you'd put

{{Non-free use rationale

|Article = Seaorbiter

|Description = official logo of Seaorbiter

|Source = put the website name here

|Portion = all

|Low_resolution = no

|Purpose = to show the seaorbiter logo in the Seaorbiter article

|Replaceability = Not with a free image

|other_information =

}}

I'm not sure if this is exact, but it would be close enough for other people to fiddle with it rather than delete it. The image needs to be then used in the Seaorbiter article, if it is not used there, it gets deleted. It can't be used on your talkpage or userpage, you can put a link to it though. Fair use images can only be used in articles and have to be deleted if not in use. If you want to be really sure, you can ask at the en wiki help desk. Other wikis may have different policies and some don't allow non-free fair use images at all. Penyulap 04:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Penyulap. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant... I am flabbergasted at the level of help you just provided me. I have been on Wiki (not commons) for a little and have NEVER read such help. I really want to thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of this. If there is anything I can do in return I'll be more than happy to help (maybe can buy you a beer when you next travel down to Australia! Lol) Face-smile.svg Thank you again. — Ludopedia(Talk) 04:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. you could give me requests for funny images now and then, or barnstars, either as requests to draw or just as an award. I likes me barnstars Face-smile.svg. What makes you say I'm in australia btw ? just curious. Also, although it's all about correct and how it works, you'll still get people to dot the I's and cross T's, and so on. Usually you get something 2/3rds done and that's enough to make it stick. Penyulap 04:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Since re-reading our conversation of yesterday, and in order to finalise what to upload, one more question comes to mind (promise this will be the last). For future reference I will follow your advice as to upload to local wikis when it comes to logos. For this particular case, and at this point in time, having spent literally hours doing this logo I am confused as this is now all new to me. What do you recommend ? : would it be better to upload my work in commons OR is would it be better to upload the original copyrighted logo inside Wiki itself (not commons) under what I understand is the "fair use" ?
Because with all what you have explained, I was not aware you could do that, and believed the only way was fiddling with a logo, trying to match it to a certain point but make sure you absolutely avoid to make a derivative work (which then becomes a copyright issue etc…), which takes for ever and the result may not become what helps the most the Wikipedia encyclopaedia or its users, because "whatever work you do, it is not the real thing" in the end... What are your thoughts? Do you recommend uploading what I made to Commons or the original on the local Wiki. What is going to be the most useful to readers ?
Finally, yes sure if I can help I'll keep in mind the barnstars, as requests to draw, or or just as an award, with pleasure. As for a barnstar for you I could not help to put one on your page Face-smile.svg. Ah also, nothing makes me say you are in Australia, I don't know if you are, are you?. If you were that would be a coincidence as I am. And yesterday I jokingly (but in a serious sense too) wrote that, may you travel down under, and are feeling like a drink, I'll be happy to offer you one (or a few). Cordially. — Ludopedia(Talk) 05:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I do appreciate your offer of beer, and I very much appreciate the wikilove Face-smile.svg. I have difficulty to travel even short distances. But the Internet makes the world a lot closer ! 'Penyulap' is a noun, it means magician in Indonesian, I have many friends who are Australian, and many who are Asian. I understand those cultures reasonably well compared to US/Canada/UK, which surprise me everyday. I don't drink alcohol, however, if I travel 'down under' I think it would be a lovely idea to have a happy time together, thank you.
For the file, I have myself done much work to create free images using the 'sweat of my brow' and often it pays off very well. Sometimes, when it is a copyright image, some copyright images, it turns into a catch-22 where no matter what method you use to create the image it is the result that counts. Then we get caught because if it is close enough to the original to be useful, it is often so close that it becomes a copyright issue.
There is no copyright in an idea, in this case the combination of a bullwhip and hat. The fact that most viewers will recognise the allusion to the fictional character Indiana Jones does not matter.
There are not many pages on commons that specifically help artists who create new work for commons without using simple recording devices like cameras. There are quite a few artists, although nothing to compare to the website deviant art for example. A page that might help explain some of the copyright issues for created work is Commons:Fan art. If you can read enough, talk to enough people and understand what is and is not ok you can probably write a new page explaining what is ok and what is not, once you understand it all yourself.
For the logo, I do recommend to copy from the website and upload to en.wiki, the Commons:Graphic Lab is a place to use your skills to create new art, though I often find it is too quiet for me ! that is why I sometimes beg people for funny requests to do. There are a lot of images to make, so don't worry if one copyright image gives you a little trouble. There is a lot more to do, plenty of opportunities to help ! Penyulap 07:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello mister magician. Agree with you, Internet makes the world a lot closer. Ok, I will follow your recommendation and do as you suggest. Once more, Penyulap, thank you for all your help and your time for this image. Cordially Smile — Ludopedia(Talk) 05:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please have a look at these PD-related deletion requests?

Hello altogether,

one week ago I started two deletion requests:

There has been some reasoning for keeping the files, but I feel that I'm not experienced enough in those things yet to draw a conclusion. Some input from more experienced users would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How do I upload CC BY-SA 2.0 images from Geograph using the upload wizard?

I recently tried to upload an image from the Geograph website but had a problem when I came to the licence section of the 'upload wizard'. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic image does not appear in the tick boxes. To quote from the http://www.geograph.org.uk/faq3.php?l=0 site 'In addition, we require all submitters to adopt a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence on their photographic submissions. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ ' How do I upload a Geograph image when the upload wizard does not give me an option to enter the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) licence? Commons holds many Geograph images with this licence already and most (if not all) of them are published under the CC BY-SA 2.0 licence. I have noticed that the upload wizard would accept a CC BY-SA 2.0 licence, but only if the source of the file is Flickr, rather than geograph. --Waugh Bacon (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A few quick suggestions to try:
  1. You could work around it by uploading under any other licence and then changing it afterwards
  2. Use the old interface for upload rather than the wizard
  3. See if http://misterwiki.host22.com/tools/geograph_org2commons.php is working
-- (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I shall give those a try.
--Waugh Bacon (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Chile- el pueblo vencera.jpg

File:Chile- el pueblo vencera.jpg is listed under an Argentinian PD license, though the photo within the book cover was taken during the 1973 Chilean coup. Wouldn't that image fall under Chilean copyright (where the image is not in the PD) and therefore disqualify the cover from PD? Unfamiliar with how the cross-jurisdiction stuff works. Also note that there is a derivative image: File:Chile- el pueblo vencera cropped.jpg czar · · 06:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't falls under Chilean CR if the photo was taken by an Argentinean photographer who registered the photo in Argentina, in my opinion.--Coentor (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Photographs of inherited paintings

I would be grateful for some advice on this: In 2007, I inherited some paintings when my great-great-uncle died. They were painted by one of his friends who had died in 1997. Now I have taken photographs of the paintings and would like to share some of these with Commons, but am I allowed to do so? Regards, --Bob Collowân (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Owning the paintings does not automatically make you the copyright holder. And since the painter died in 1997, it seems that his works are still copyrighted in almost any country of the world. Assuming from your userpage that the painter was Danish, his works are copyrighted until 2067, so you can't upload them . De728631 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Very well. Thanks for your reply. --Bob Collowân (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DARPA image

I would like to upload this image. On this page it is credited as "DARPA courtesy image". I assume that means it was produced by a DARPA employee and thus qualifies for {{PD-USgov}}. However, I figured it best to make sure before uploading. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the term courtesy photo is used very often these days, but normally when a news paper attributed a photo courtesy photo it meant that it had been submitted to the publisher, with the specific purpose of being published and one given context. I do believe, though, that it is most common used with portrait photos, as is the case of the majority of photos tagged courtesy photo by the Boston Herald. In this case I guess it could go both ways: Either it is a courtesy photo submitted by DARPA to defence.gov for use, or it is a photo DARPA has received by a third party for courtesy use. Under COM:PCP I would surmise that more specific details needs to be located, before using {{PD-USgov}}. --heb [T C E] 10:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I emailed them this afternoon and they quickly replied to clear up which images (of the robot in question) are in public domain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Check source USM

With File:Golden Eye Diamond USM.jpg can we assume that the USM took the picture because most versions on the net have a watermark with their name? I also just found File:Golden Eye Diamond USAO.jpg, USAO photo though. Found a third: File:Golden Eye Diamond USM b.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be assumed based on the watermark. Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Dune di S. Maria del Forallo.jpg

This image has odd licensing. It is licensed as a CC BY-SA 3.0, but is from Panoramio where it is covered by a CC BY-ND 3.0 license, this is incompatible with our licensing requirements, I have started a DR here as well, but as the name of both the uploader and Panoramio user are the same, they could very well be the same person, and this may be easily sorted out (I've posted to their userpage informing them of this discussion). Liamdavies (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Derivative works, and Threshold of Originality for cropped images

This is in regards to File:Whaam!_text_balloon.jpg, which is a tight crop of just mostly text from a well-known copyrighted work by Roy Lichtenstein. It was deleted before, but it was restored; I've spoken to the restorer Fastily but he claims that because the crop is only text, it falls under the TOO (for the US, natch) and thus can be free. If what was shown in the crop was simply a fresh new work created by a WP editor, I'd agree it probably falls under TOO. However, I argue that the cropping - regardless how tight it is and what elements it is done on - still is an operation that technically is reversed to Lichtenstein (or current copyright owner) and while the end result may be an image that would below the TOO if it was a unique creation, the originality was in the original work and that itself cannot be removed in creating the derivative cropping, thus this image is still non-free.

I've tried to look around the web for cases to support this, but I can't find anything strong enough to determine this either way. It just seems to me that if Fastily's interpretation is true, one can effectively "free" up a copyrighted image by taking small enough pieces that would otherwise fail TOO, and then reassembling all those uncopyrightable pieces into a large free work, which of course completely breaks the spirit of copyright. --Masem (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The text seems fairly creative (it's certainly not a formulaic factual statement), so I wonder if even that alone would still be protected by copyright. --Avenue (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to make sense at first, but that is exactly how it works, if you disassemble a copyright image down to simple elements you can upload them that way. That is correct. Taken to an extreme, you can break it down to single pixels, which cannot ever be copyright.
There are some strange things like that in copyright. The other one is you can have a fully public domain image which you cannot crop in certain ways because it would become a copyvio. It's strange but true. For example, a public domain image of a crowd, if you zoom and crop to a copyright image on a T-shirt, it becomes a problem, but as a crowd, it's de-minimus. Penyulap 04:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
As a second opinion on that, I'll accept that reasoning, though I'm curious if there has been case law to support that idea. Again, it seems counter to the core concept of copyright and derivative works. --Masem (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Think of something like File:Albert Dock Brick 4.jpg. Now let's say that these bricks are part of a copyrighted French building. Would this violate the architect's copyright? I would say no as you can't see any "imprint of the personality of the architect" (using the wording from COM:TOO#France). All it takes is some common sense. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
In that case (the hypothetical) as it would be very unlikely that one could tell that section of brick was pulled from the recognizable building. Here, in this case, the origin of the cropped image is very clear, but as suggested that doesn't seem to enter into the free/non-free equation. --Masem (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Take File:DOS pause.png, then. MS-DOS is copyrighted computer software. Do you seriously think that anyone would claim that File:DOS pause.png is copyrightable? There is zero originality in the words "press any key to continue"... --Stefan4 (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Keyboard-anykey-cropped.jpg

Hehe, and the even better "Keyboard not connected. Press F1 to continue."

They made life so hard. I'm glad I've abandoned all that garbage, along with viruses and malware. There are so many people working on Linux without you noticing, everything just fixes itself, it's a sweet dream. Free content vs the headaches of copy protection. One aimed to make perfect software, the other aimed only to make a profit. They use flaws to make you buy more. Penyulap 06:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you extract a non-copyrightable portion from a copyrightable work, yes you can use that portion by itself. But if you try to put pieces back together again, that becomes a problem. In this case it would depend on if the text itself is copyrightable... a poem would be, and that seems pretty close at the very least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo removed/no copyright issues

I had a photo removed off of a page due to potential copyright issues. How do I prove that I work for the person, that i posted via his permission and authority and the item is not a copyright issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annreinkie (talk • contribs)

File:Wikipedia zeppelindecke flyer lz127.jpeg

This image was created in 1928, as the work of a company. I've been talking to the uploader on IRC. Is it PD yet? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If it's anonymous (i.e. the actual person who made it has not been made public), then it would be PD in Germany I believe since 1999. But its U.S. copyright would exist until 2024 I think, for a 1928 work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that this image was created in 1928. It looks more likely that this image was created in recent years as part of the advertising campaign for Zoeppritz's LZ 127 blanket, and goes with the 1928 story used in the campaign. Of course they would give it a little retro look. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I told the guy to put a copyright notice on the source website, so hopefully that will sort things. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

TX0003578346 vs. {{PD-RU-exempt}}

Is TX0003578346 covered by {{PD-RU-exempt}}? If so, does the copyright registration tell us that {{PD-RU-exempt}} doesn't help in the US and that such works need to satisfy some other public domain criterion (such as {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-US-unpublished}}) in order to be uploaded to Commons? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Revised (6) Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme

All of the above files were originally published at http://www.r6rs.org/ The R6RS is in the public domain. I, the uploader, originally tagged these files as {{Copyrighted free use}}, please verify the public domain status of the files. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that the PDF files are in the public domain. Unless such evidence is provided, the files can't be kept. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Uploading Coin Images - clarity on licensing required

Hi! Pl tell me the correct license to use to upload coin images from my collection. The coin images are a combination of (a) ones that I have personally clicked with my own camera and (b) images of coins published elsewhere on the web that I have purchased/acquired (the coin) for my collection and am the current legal and physical owner.

I had previously uploaded coin images under both category above but all these were recently deleted incl the ones that I photographed myself and I am a bit confused as to why it was done so as my intent is only to share images of coins that I own and not copy someone's other image.

If it is Wiki policy to allow only self-photographed images to be uploaded as 'self work', then please clarify so that I am clear that I should not use an existing image published on the web even though I own the subject matter of the image ie the coin. These published images are usually websites that either sell or auction coins and the image is a crucial influencer in the decision to buy.

Thank you. Meluha66 (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This depends on whether the coin designs are in the public domain or not, which varies from country to country. If the coins are very old, they may be in the public domain. If they are modern, they may still be in the public domain in some countries (for example, the Czech Republic). You can upload photographs of such coins to the Commons. However, in other countries (for example, Singapore), the copyright in coin designs is owned by the government. You cannot upload photographs of such coins until the copyright has expired or if the copyright owner agrees to license the copyright under a suitably free licence (which, I think, will be extremely difficult to obtain). See "Commons:Currency" for information about individual countries.
Assuming that the coins in question are in the public domain, note that you cannot upload photographs of the coins that you did not take personally but downloaded from the Internet. See "Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet": "Coins are essentially 3D articles, and there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image. The WMF General Counsel has indicated that in his view coin images do not fall under Bridgeman v. Corel and hence are copyrighted ..." — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

image with no listed copyright info

I've got a film slide, that I've scanned, that I think would make a nice addition to the page en:APL (programming language). It is a photo taken in July 1976, of a promotional image. It looks like it was taken for a presentation on APL. The slide has no copyright info, either on the "frame" of the slide, nor in the image itself. The company that developed and maintained APL has long since ceased to exist, and the photo was taken by my father of printed material. This seems to be a rather complicated copyright situation, that may result in the image not being eligible for upload to commons, even though no one could claim intellectual property over the image.

Any help would be appreciated.

--Keithonearth (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The image could possibly be PD-US-no notice, however I doubt a bootleg slide would be sufficient evidence of lack of notice. It seems a number of companies developed and supported APL, including IBM. In any case, IP rights do not vanish when a company goes out of business, though they may be extremely difficult to trace thereafter. You might be able to put it up on WP as fair use, in the same way book covers are posted.Dankarl (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The slide is not bootlegged, it's was produced by en:I. P. Sharp Associates for their own use, duplicating a graphic used in print for a presentation (this is before powerpoint). It seems wrong to just assume that the image would be copyrighted, even though it is not stated anywhere. Though yes, uploading to WP as fair use would be probably the easy way out. --Keithonearth (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
A slide produced for internal use, even if displayed to customers, is not necessarily published. Did the printed matter carry a copyright notice? Was it published in the US at the same time or before as its publication in Canada? If the answers are no, yes [then]it may be pd in the us. Then there's the question of Canadian copyright. Dankarl (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I've not ever seen the original printed material, I don't know if they bothered to print copyright info on it. This was computer programmers in the '70s, so it could easily been something they didn't think about. The to my knowledge the image was never published in the US. Duplication was done with no attempt to maintain the copyright info. Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are saying about it being in the public domain in the US, or how that would work. --Keithonearth (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The US was pretty much the only country to require copyright notices. (It's conceivable some of the other signers of the w:Buenos Aires Convention did at some point in the past.) While the fact that it didn't have a copyright notice on it might have mattered in the US in the past, enough pressure was put on the US to require it to return to copyright foreign works that lost copyright because they didn't have a copyright notice on it. So it's almost certainly not PD in the US or anywhere else that respects international copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Best copyright tag to use for 1840s-50s portrait?

After consulting with the Help Desk (see [7]), it seems that a portrait done by H.B. Norris (see portrait here), likely in the 1840s, is safe to be uploaded to commons. However, I am unsure about what specific copyright tag could best be used for the image. Any ideas or suggestions? Thanks in advance!--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest PD-Art with PD-old-70, along with a note justifying the dating and probable latest dob of the artist. If the portrait was painted in 1850 by a 20 year old artist who lived to be 110 it still clears 70 years pma. Dankarl (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


(Copied from my talk page since I would like a broader range of experience on this query)Dankarl (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dankarl,
After uploading the Rosas file (see [8]), a copyright notice came up from Metadata EXIF. In order to avoid problems, I changed the image with another one (from an Argentine museum) which I planned to upload after the Rosas image.
I may have acted prematurely, perhaps even incorrectly. Could you please check that I did the right thing? Should I have replaced the original Rosas image, should it have best been filed for deletion, or was the EXIF copyright warning something to be ignored?
I apologize in advance for any inconvenience.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you overwrote the image, I can't see the exif so I don't know what the notice you saw says. Since it is a British source, you should be aware that in Great Britain, claims of copyright on photographic reproductions of paintings are allowed, and that this situation is the major exception to Commons usual policy that images need to be free in both the US and the source country. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for more explanation. If you are a British resident or citizen or are uploading from Great Britain you need to respect this assertion. Otherwise people usually ignore it but there have been attempts to sue US residents, as far as I know without success. There is one other possibility that comes to mind: there may be an assertion that the painting was unpublished until some relatively recent date. The only way to answer that assertion is with a lot of research on the painting's history. Dankarl (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The second assertion is difficult to find with this Rosas image, which (as you mentioned in the Help Desk) does not even look like a work by H.B. Norris. In fact, the Rosas image in question ([9]) looks more similar to this work by Arthur Onslow (see [10]).
Luckily, I am currently not residing in the UK. Since the image is not getting used in any article, feel free to revert it to the old version so you can see the old copyright tag. Also, if anyone wants to upload a separate file for it, that is perfectly fine to me as well. Thanks! :-) --MarshalN20 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, there are several copyright notices in the EXIF:

“* Usage Terms: The Public Catalogue Foundation is committed to respecting the intellectual property rights of others. . .The copyright in paintings and images reproduced by the Public Catalogue Foundation belong to a variety of organisations and individuals including the collections that own the paintings and third party rights holders. ..Permitted Use of This Image.This image and data related to the image may be reproduced for non-commercial research and private study purposes. ..For ALL other uses other than those outlined above, including commercial uses, users should contact, in the first instance, the contributing collection using the contact information provided on the Your Paintings website. Where the underlying painting is in copyright, further permissions will also be needed.. .Protection of Image Copyright.This image is protected with a secure invisible digital watermark that allows the Public Catalogue Foundation to identify unauthorized use of the image. ..Further Information.Any queries should be addressed to copyrightofficer@thepcf.org.uk
  • Copyright Owner Name: English Heritage, Down House; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation
  • Description: (c) English Heritage, Down House; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation
  • Profile Copyright: Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company
  • Image Description: (c) English Heritage, Down House; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation
  • Copyright: This image is copyrighted. For further information please read Rights Usage Terms.
  • Copyright Flag: False
  • Caption-Abstract: (c) English Heritage, Down House; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation
  • Credit: (c) English Heritage, Down House
  • Copyright Notice: This image is copyrighted. For further information please read Rights Usage Terms.”

The copyright claim by Hewlett-Packard Company refers to some computer software used for creating the image. Hewlett-Packard Company can only claim copyright to the software, not to the image. The other claims refer to the photographer who can claim copyright protection in some countries but not in other countries. If you are in a country in which the image is copyrighted, you might wish to avoid uploading images like this or do it anonymously. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So, if I uploaded the image from the United States and under my current username, there should not be a problem I should worry about? Regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Image licence

HI there,

My client Sportscraft are wanting to use this image of Roger Moore link provided below of image. I have located it back to Wikimedia.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roger_Moore_circa_1960.JPG

We are doing an editorial on Polo's and who wore it best, with Roger Moore being one of the iconic men to vote for.

Usage for image; Direct Mailer piece that will be mailed out to 100,00 recipients.

We are hoping to dispatch the DM tomorrow AM.

Look forward to your response.

Thanks, Soph

File:Roger Moore circa 1960.JPG is public domain because of Template:PD-US-no notice. There are no restrictions on its use except for personality rights. You may wish to have your legal types look that over. We can't give legal advice here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

South/Central America and copyright

I have a question from the Italian "village pump". As far as you know, what South/Central American governments release the photos of their presidents with an open license? After a fast check, I have found information about Chile, Brazil and Argentina. Thanks. --Lucas (msg) 00:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay stamps

Does anybody know what the copyright status of stamps in Uruguay is? I'd like to use some from this website, but i can't find any information about the copyright status of stamps in Uruguay published less than 50 years ago (i've searched with google and duckduckgo and commons:stamps doesn't have anything about Uruguay).

Neither Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates nor Commons:Stamps/Public domain has any specific details for Uraguay, and without deeper investigation I can only assume, based on Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Uruguay that 50 year pma applies. There does not appear to be any government exception for stamps, so {{PD-Uruguay}} should be used as has been for pre-1963 Stamps of Uruguay. Ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Logo of International Visegrad Fund

I would like to upload the logo of International Visegrad Fund, see [11]. I asked the Fund and they responded the logo is not free and use of it is limited to permission granted with grant or similar relation to the Fund. But it consist from only very simple geometrical shapes and text, so maybe we can apply Template:PD-textlogo. What do you think? --KuboF (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's simple enough. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Are gravestones ( tombstones ) works?

I just noticed the Category:Gravestones in Denmark which contains a lot of photos of gravestones in Denmark. In Denmark however FOP only extends to buildings, in which case gravestones as such wouldn't be covered by FOP. But that is only if they are considered to be works and thus the photos Commons:Derivative works. As some of you may know, in Denmark we are a bit "sensitive" to photographs of statues in public spaces, mainly due to the entire Little Mermaid-thing. So if gravestones should be compared to statues and churchyards considered a public space (which I think it is), I suppose that we need to go through a lot of the photos of gravestones and do something about them. But I would like to hear peoples opinions on the following:

  1. Would churchyards be considered public space?
  2. Are gravestones comparably to statues?

(the same issue may also concern plaquettes and similar). In kind regards, heb [T C E] 08:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

plain gravestones, no. Utilitarian object. Simple adornments like vases and crosses, no. Life sized carving of angels, yes. Penyulap 09:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Whether something is utilitarian or not has no effect on whether it is copyrighted in Denmark or not. See COM:TOO#Denmark.
Many graves, for example File:Holmens Kirke Copenhagen graveyard large Classen.jpg, are clearly below the threshold of originality as they are just a block with a name and dates and similar stuff. If you are talking about things like File:Alf Tolboe Jensen - grav - 2.JPG, then I think that we have a problem. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, reading that makes me smile, because, yes we are both right. These objects have copyright, and we also have images of them here, which is just fine. Can't help but smile at that eh ? Penyulap 16:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The knife is a Japanese product. Utilitarian objects are not copyrightable in Japan (see COM:TOO#Japan), so the knife is free in both its source country and the United States, but not in Denmark.
The chair on the photo is not the same chair model as the one the court found to be copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
There is also a parliament proposition somewhere which suggests that ships and places where humans usually are are covered by building FOP (i.e. ships are "buildings" with regard to FOP law). No idea if a chair or a knife would count as a "building" in that aspect. Danish law is a bit interesting in that buildings don't have to be outdoors, don't have to be permanently installed and don't have to be in a public place: a building is always covered by FOP, without exception. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
copyright flag {facepalm}
Hmm, copyright law, always full of strange loopholes. This flag is a perennial favourite argument on commons, because in Australia it's considered copyrightable. Sheer idiocy. Penyulap 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
It was in fact File:HansScherfigGrave.jpg I was thinking of initially. While the TOO-angle is interesting, I was more aiming for a general discussion of wither gravestones or anything serving similar functions at a churchyard/graveyard are at all comparably to statues. A statue or plaque/plaquette (such as this one) are {{PD-ineligible}} and thus I can't see why similar gravestones shouldn't be. As an interesting angle, I do believe that there is a miniature replica of the famous The Little Mermaid statue on the tomb of Edvard Eriksen on Vestre Cemetery... :) --heb [T C E] 07:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

┌──────┘
Would I be wrong in assuming that simple gravestones (just text and simple figures) should be considered utilitarian objects and, that more complex "statue-like" ones falls under FOP - or in this case - lack thereof? Two me that seems to be the opinions of the participants (consensus?) --heb [T C E] 12:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now opened a deletion request with eight stones, that I consider to be covered by the above. I would like to encourage participants in this discussion, to also participate in the deletion request, as it provides a discussion base for a more concrete discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Gravestones in Denmark above TOO. --heb [T C E] 10:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard about gravestones as artwork before. If there is a artwork among these gravestones it could only be File:HansScherfigGrave.jpg. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
To be a work of art, a tombstone must have been made ​​by an artist. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Not if you're making artists a subset of people; whether or not you think that four-year-old armed with a paintbrush is an artist or not, her work is still copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
And how do you suggest we determine who is an artist and who is not? --heb [T C E] 07:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I should have said "established artists" instead of "artist", by which I mean artists who are currently represented on the museums. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Which is completely and totally bogus; that an artist is currently represented in museums should and does have no connection to copyright law. Many people outside the art establishment make part of their living doing art, whether it be commercial successes or someone who makes a few bucks doing fantasy art for D&D knockoffs. They need and get that protection that copyright offers them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with Rhodesian CoA and flags

For a current FA-review on en-Wiki i could use some opinions from the experts:

  • File:Coat_of_arms_of_Rhodesia.svg - is probably an old pre-1923 design, which tag(s) would be appropriate? PD-user alone looks wrong.
  • File:Flag_of_Rhodesia_(1964).svg - UK-flag looks OK, CoA see above - does the overall "design" as composite flag need copyright tags aswell?
  • File:Flag_of_Rhodesia.svg - PD-old-70 looks wrong, lacking more specific author and creation details?
  • I am a bit surprised, the flag copyrights look like that, has there been a discussion about Rhodesian copyright in the past? What are the specific Rhodesian rules - same as UK or is Zimbabwe law used? (both seem to be missing in the list of copyright of territories) Any info or links to further info would be appreciated. Thanks for any help. GermanJoe (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I think, i got those (PD-UK-Gov). But if anyone is interested in the topic, feel free to double-check. Thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

copyrighted book cover

Hi All

217 Louisiana Heron.jpg

Trying to work out why this book cover of The Birds of America is in copyright on English language Wikipedia, the original is in the public domain.

Thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably because the uploader was unfamiliar with the work and didn't know it's in the public domain. I remedied this problem by moving it to Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I thought I was missing something obvious. --Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sharealike clause

Given the sharealike clause in CC and GFDL: does this mean that anyone using a photograph from Commons must put the entire work they are presenting under a free licensing? For example, could a news medium use an image from Commons without releasing their work as free? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be mixed opinions on this. I believe that CC has previously said that their licenses don't have this strong copyleft property (I can't find a link now though), while the FSF has said that the GFDL does.[12] Another view (expressed here) is that for both licenses it essentially depends on what legally constitutes a "derivative work", which will vary by jurisdiction. The question is whether the entire work (e.g. an illustrated news article or Wikipedia article) counts as a single derivative work, or a collective work comprising various separate and independent works.
These issues were discussed on the Wikimedia mailing list back in 2007 when the licensing changeover was announced (in this thread; some relevant bits are collected here). Robert Rohde reported there that he reached an out-of-court settlement with a publisher who violated the GFDL's strong copyleft provisions. --Avenue (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
http://creativecommons.org/ may have more detail. I think the Gnu licenses are being scrapped at commons because of this issue and others. If a file has both CC and Gnu then CC only can be selected to re-license the new version. I had thought that when a file is used in a greater work then only that version of the file would need to be re-licensed under CC. This is the same as books that list image credits. Some would be fully protected, some CC, and some PD all in the same book. The book itself could be fully protected but scans of the CC and PD images are not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Expand the Draft 2 treatment section on http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/ShareAlike to see CC's current position. Disappointing for anyone hoping they would explicitly support strong copyleft, but I think it's consistent with the views they've expressed over the years.
The GFDL license does face some opposition here at Commons, but that is due to perceived impracticality of reuse, especially in print. Strong copyleft has only been raised in support of the GFDL, if I recall correctly. --Avenue (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Walters Art Museum images

The Walters Art Museum website says that "Photographs of three-dimensional objects and all descriptions have been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License", so I would expect that Commons users could upload those images freely (acknowledging the images' origins, of course). But all the Walters Art Museum images that I've looked at on Commons have an OTRS ticket in their licensing information, implying that the museum's permission was required to upload them here. I realize that most of those images were added when the Commons:Walters Art Museum project was in full swing a year or two ago, and the museum's licensing at that time may not have been as free as it is now. So if I want to use an image from the museum that isn't on Commons now, can I just take the image and upload it with the usual CC 3.0 licensing information, or should I seek some other kind of permission? A. Parrot (talk)

They will probably need Template:LicenseReview. If there are lots then someone may wish to write a bot to check them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-US Copyrights

Any image not published in the US at some stage, or by a US citizen is considered unpublished in US law. The URAA date does/did not affect the copyright status of unpublished material. Can someone please explain to me why Commons hosts hundreds/thousands of images that are technically covered under US copyright (as far as can I see anyway)?

Yours sincerely, confused and having no idea what to upload here when it comes to old material -- (AKA. Nbound (talk) ) 13:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You state your first sentence as a fact, but except for some highly controversial cases in the Ninth Circuit, it's not generally held to be true.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking through Copyright Office circulars, Copyright Basics says pretty clearly it's not true now, and offers a definition of publication from the 1976 Copyright Act:
“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
I also looked through s:Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the URAA, which never mentions this requirement. Given that part of the point of not being a Berne Convention signer was to be able to use a wealth of foreign material without permission, to say that it was unpublished and thus under common-law copyright would be silly and counterproductive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
So what can I upload. Its hard to know when the letter of the law says one thing, and Im being told another? The URAA stuff doesnt mention unpublished material because if they hadnt gone out of copyright in the US on that date then there was no copyright to restore (it only affected lapsed copyrights, it didnt diminish existing ones). -- Nbound (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
What do you believe the letter of the law says, and why do you believe that? The letter of the law simply doesn't say that all works published outside the US are unpublished, and if you believe otherwise, you should show some evidence for your claim instead of making unsupported claims like the above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
In general, under the old law, published anywhere was considered published by U.S. law -- it did not matter where it was published. The letter of the law itself had no such distinctions. It was one particular Ninth Circuit case which throws some doubt on that, as Prosfilaes said, with a very creative interpretation of "published" in order to get the result the court felt was right. It is true that the term "published" was not explicitly defined in the 1909 law, leaving it to a more or less common-sense definition (though later case law would further define it). In general, if copies were distributed before 1923 (anywhere), that should be enough for U.S. law, at least as we interpret it on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok so pre 1923 is ok? what about things after that. I am not claiming to be an expert or anything. I just want to know what I can upload (as far as photographs go) and what I can't. As an Australian there is much material that is PD from here up until the 1950s, and some even newer than that (crown copyright is only 50 years). Trying to find material that is PD-US aswell is quite hard. FWIW I got the the idea of works outside the US being considered as non-published from the Commons:Hirtle_Chart (read the headings). -- Nbound (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I have found that the term foreign national means something different inside the US, skewing my interpretation of the chart :/ -- Nbound (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
As for the Hirtle chart, it does use 1923, but does note the "Special Case" towards the bottom which is a result of the mentioned court case, which is binding law in a few states (though the more usual interpretation is also binding law in other states). The ruling was also about material published in a foreign language (i.e. non-English), so it may not be applicable to English-speaking countries since those works could be directly marketed to a U.S. audience. It also may not apply to pictorial works for similar reasons. It was an odd ruling to be sure (Twin Books vs Disney; see William Patry's critical coverage). For Australia, the usual concern on Commons is if it was copyrighted by Australia's laws in 1996 (due to the URAA), which for photos I would presume to be those created before 1946 and published without copyright notice before 1989 (the latter part being U.S. law, as no copyright could be lost if first published March 1, 1989 or later). If a work is documented or reasonably assumed to have remained private, such as a private photograph only recently published, then I would avoid uploading. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:HorizonFuel Cell Technologies logo.jpg

Can I ask for the deletion of the file? --Diligent (uploader) (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Speedydelete should work since you are the uploader and the file isn't in use.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Punta della Dogana

I'm looking for (ideally a free-use) image of w:en:Punta della Dogana's interior, but it's an art gallery, so I'm having some trouble. Two potential images are [13] and [14]. Would either of those be eligible for Commons, considering their cc licensing as photos, but containing copyrighted works of art? The photos were taken in Italy. Thanks czar · · 21:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

8 looks ok. The art is either Commons:De minimis or it doesn't meet Commons:Threshold of originality. Use Template:De minimis as well as Template:PD-shape for the art. To me it just looks like big screen TVs that are shut off. 7 probably has the better art as too much of a focal point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this Canadian school board logo PD?

From Commons:Village_pump#Is_this_logo_simple_enough_to_be_PD.3F - Is en:File:Toronto District School Board Logo.svg considered to be too simple to be copyrigtable? Should it go under DR after being uploaded? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It is probably PD. Unfortunately, copyright law being the way it is (especially in a common law system), it is unlikely anyone on here can give a more exact answer. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
As long as there is a consensus that it's PD, it's fine. That way I can upload it WhisperToMe (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I probably would not. While there have been some Canadian cases which backed away from the UK's threshold of originality (which their law inherited), it may still be lower than the U.S. threshold (see w:Originality in Canadian copyright law). It might be Crown Copyright as well, which could affect things (not sure if those follow the same "originality" requirements). And to me, there is a chance it could be copyrightable in the U.S. as well -- not sure that is a simple shape (and I don't think it's meant to represent a letter or anything like that). It's close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 15:57, July 28, 2013‎ (UTC)
  • You could try emailing the school board. generalinquiries AT tdsb.on.ca They may have created the logo from public domain clip art. I don't think it is Crown Copyright because school boards are governed at the municipal level. It is probably only needed locally on en:wp so fair use there should be fine. IMHO it is below the threshold but would need Template:Trademarked if uploaded here. You could try upload an DR to get more input.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks borderline to me, and leaning toward copyrightable in Canada: I'd keep it away from Commons, per Commons:Precautionary principle. I think it would probably be PD in the U.S. as being too simple, but that won't cut it on Commons, since Commons would require a Canadian work to be public domain in both Canada and the U.S. Not being a lawyer, I would go with a plain language interpretation in Commons:Threshold of originality#Canada from CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada: A copyrighted work in Canada doesn't have to be especially creative, just enough that it's not copied from someone else and it's more than just a mechanical exercise. The apple in the Toronto District School Board logo looks like it's not just copied and not just a mechanical output: Someone had to, at the very least, make a simple artistic decision about what portion of an apple would appear in the logo, even if they just traced it afterwards; it's not the automated result of just feeding a picture of an apple into a scanner and letting some software decide what the logo was going to look like. It's plausible enough that copyright could attach, that it probably shouldn't be on Commons, per Commons:Precautionary principle. --Closeapple (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:EUR 5 reverse 2nd series.jpg

I have a copyright/licensing question regarding this (and by extension other EU banknotes); given that the EU does apply restrictions on use and modification (see ECB/2003/4 and ECB/2003/5) it cant be said to free to use and they should not be hosted here. What do other think ? LGA talkedits 03:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Others agree with you. You can see for example this deletion decision. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I have nominated the whole category for deletion based on that. LGA talkedits 01:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Business Immo

Hi,

CBabinot have uploaded a serie of logos of a French company Business Immo. The chosen licence for those logos seems suspect. She might be an employee but not the copyright holder.

Can someone, please, check this out and act as necessary? Thank you.

--Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I import a painting of 1891 by fr:Georges Moreau de Tours (died in 1901)?

Apologies and please redirect me if this is not the right place for that question.

Hello, I see on File:Morphinees par Moreau de Tours.jpeg that this painting, painted in 1891 by painter fr:Georges Moreau de Tours (died in 1901), is now "in the public domain because its copyright has expired", with a "copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years". Does this mean that any painting by this author is now in the public domain, and can be imported here as well?

Specifically, I'd like to import the painting La mort du polytechnicien Vaneau, 29 juillet 1830, also painted in 1891 by that painter, in order to use it on the Wikipedia entry fr:Louis Vaneau. Can I?

Thanks for any help! - Cos-fr (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they all are in public domain and can be uploaded. Ruslik (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the answer. - Cos-fr (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos on Pixabay

What do we know about Pixabay? File:Alaska Waldgrenze.jpg is nominally PD. The reported source photostream is very diverse [15]. Dankarl (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)