Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/08

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.

Changing the license of many photos

I've uplouded many photos with the wrong license (CC BY-SA 3.0 instead of CC BY 3.0 ES),so how can i change their license, instead of editing one by one? --Dorhi (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your best bet is Commons:AutoWikiBrowser. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Help:VisualFileChange.js might be a good one too. Or you can ask someone with a bot to do it for you Commons:Bots/Work requests. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess this was a cross-post of this one. -- Rillke(q?) 09:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

I have a portrait of a person which has been scanned from an old framed photo. The person portrayed is my close family member and I am sure that there is no copy right reserved for that photo. Please advise the license option which needs to be selected while uploading the picture in wikimedia commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasanthr00 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 22 July 2013‎ (UTC)

With an unknown author the copyright can exist for up to 120 years from date of creation. If you can find a photographer and publication date then that will help. See: Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_domain.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There was a one point an argument advanced here that essentially all portrait photographs can be considered to have been published when delivered without restriction to the customer. This would have the effect of making a large number of late 19th and early 20th century US portraits PD-1923 or PD-no notice. Whatever happened to that view? was it ever tested? Dankarl (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That argument has not been generally accepted. It is contradicted by the following from the USCO publication Copyright Basics:
"'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."
Note that "copies" is plural, that it requires "distribution", not mere delivery of a copy, and that it must be "to the public". Generally a work will not be deemed published under either the 1909 Act or more recent ones unless it has been sold to the public or, perhaps, distributed free in significant numbers. Giving a few copies to friends, family, or clients is not publication. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the argument was generally accepted on Commons (at least when it is discussed here on VP/Copyright, but perhaps there's a different trend in DR discussions). It is not contradicted by the definition of publication, it is based on the interpretations the courts gave to that definition. Admittedly, each case is particular and users of Commons may have an inclination to push to the limit of the interpretation that would be the most favorable to free use. Still, there have been decisions to the effect that, in situations that allow it, one copy can be enough to constitute a publication (which is consistent with the more general legal principle of interpretation of statutes, that the plural includes the singular and the singular includes the plural). A subtlety is deciding when a publication is general or limited, but even a limited distribution would be considered to constitute a general publication (resulting in loss of copyright when it does not include a copyright notice) unless the distributor imposed to the recipient(s) a limitation on the use they could make of the work. (One of the often cited cases for a concise discussion of some of those aspects is this.) It may not be unreasonanble to think that a 19th-century photograph, having been offered to the potentially interested people for it, and even actually distributed (sold or handed out) to the one or several recipient(s) who wanted it, without either a copyright notice or a warning of limitation on use, it was thus published. A photo is certainly unpublished if the photographer keept it to himself. But if before 1978 he offered to distribute it to other people, it would seem that some possibility of publication might begin to exist, the actual status taking into account the facts of each situation. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The USCO quote comes directly from the Copyright Act of 1976. If it was published before 1978, i.e. before the Copyright Act of 1976 entered force, then the definition of publication is different (undefined in the written law but defined in case law). Some of the differences between pre-1978 and post-1977 publication are listed at Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
On the original question, there is always a copyright, unless it has expired or the work has become PD for some other reason. In the cited case, the copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs. As Canoe1967 says, the copyright may have a long life. Generally unless it was taken before around 1880, we must have information about when and where the photograph was taken and when the photographer died in order to consider keeping it on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Declaration of the Rights of the Child

Is the image of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child free enough to be stored on commons? It dates from 1923. //  Gikü  said  done  Friday, 2 August 2013 07:50 (UTC)

I think it should be all right. It was drafted by Eglantyne Jebb, who died on 17 December 1928. I'm assuming that the document was first published in Geneva, where it was signed in 1923. Swiss law provides that all works made by authors deceased before 1 January 1943 are in the public domain. If, for some reason, the text should be regarded as having been first published in the UK, where Jebb was from, the effect of the law is the text of the document is also in the public domain. Finally, I think the logo at the top of the document is de minimis as it appears quite small in the photograph. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Commercial publication"

Does anyone know what "commercial publication" in {{PD-UKGov}} means? This is relevant for Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I could imagine that this refers to a publication in commercial media as opposed to e.g. announcements in government gazettes. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
CDP Act, section 175 (2) ? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Font-Awesome copyright

There are a number of Font-Awesome icons that are uploaded to Commons in Category:Font-Awesome icons, and they're all tagged as CC-BY-SA 3.0. I don't actually think that's the right license, though, as the Font-Awesome license page says the CC-BY-SA license is for the documentation. That said, I'm not really sure which license we should use. Can someone who's better-versed than I am in copyright review? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL is the license for their fonts it seems. We may have such a template or need to create one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
{{Open Font}} -- Liliana-60 (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
And the SVGs are "the font"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I would say they are. Category:Times New Roman is full of font images as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
According to United States copyright law, the name of a font can be trademarked, and the computer code in a computer font can be copyrighted, but the abstract shapes of glyphs in a basic textual font are mainly "functional" or "utilitarian" in purpose, and cannot be copyrighted as such (mere shapes). AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Fan art

I had an image deleted through DR before I discovered Template:Fan art. The image in question is here. I did build the sub myself in w:Second Life using w:Polygon mesh that I created from a tutorial in w:Blender (software) as well as free license w:Sculpted prims. Half way through the DR I created a new sub that was far simpler to replace the one that I thought would fail the DR. Should I be able to upload the deleted version as fan art now that I discovered the template?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The existence of the template does not change copyright law regarding fan art. If your image was deleted as a copyright violation, it is probably a copyright violation. As for the template: unsurprisingly, several of the tagged images are problematic. Others mimic only the look-and-feel of the creative works they're inspired from (uncopyrightable), as well as using the trademark in the name (e.g., File:Tron light walls arcade style.svg, File:Ddl southparkdemon sad.png). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Lame version image and better version link
The DR was closed as keep without much discussion. I simply replaced the above version with a lame one that I also created. I am just wondering whether my fan art would be accepted by consensus using my original and better sub.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest redrawing a yellow submarine of a topographical design you invent (add different features on the top deck and so on) and then dress it up in the psychedelic colour scheme of the era, rather than starting from the original, you'll probably end up with both a better looking submarine and no copyvio. Take the pride of a modern fleet as a basis for your design ;) a nuclear powered ban-the-bomb version. Penyulap 04:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The Blender tutorial that I used to create the better sub did not use any of the original images. I started with a circle, stretched it, did more Blender edits, and eventually added the the colouring. None of the work during creation used material from the copyrighted work. The propeller, headlight, and portholes were added in Second life after I imported the .dae file from Blender.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I get that and have done that myself. I've traveled that road and as far as I can tell it unfortunately ends up at the same dead-end after much reading and (grumbling). To avoid the 'looks like' and go towards the 'reminds you of' is better. Taking the concepts that are not copyrightable, a submarine which is yellow, and a genre of colouring and styling, but avoiding entirely the original submarine, is the way to go AFAIK. You end up with fan art, rather than all the hard work of using free tools and textures to create the copyright image. That's as far as I know, and I think reading a lot or asking a lot may bring you to the same idea. You have my sympathies with this, I've been there. Penyulap 06:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Penyulap is right. I'm afraid that your fan art image would not be allowable on Commons as it includes several specific elements from the original that have copyright protection including the overall shape of the sub and elements of the colour scheme. You can't avoid copyright by re-drawing original copyright-protected elements, even if you do so using a free program. It is OK to allude to the original or to make use of generic high-level concepts (such as a submarine that is yellow) provided that you steer clear of anything that could be considered a copy (even a modified copy) of the original realisation. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Even though the original film was created in the UK would Template:PD-US-no notice apply in the US where the servers are? I assume there were many versions of the 2D and 3D sub published before 1977 without proper notice. If not we should fix the template to specify only works that have USA as source country. --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright protection applies even in the US, as the US courts will enforce the valid UK copyright. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Well... more accurately, if the work was first published in the UK and originally lost its US copyright through lack of notice, the URAA would have restored that copyright and it would be enforceable in the US nowadays. The simple fact that something is still under copyright in the UK does not necessarily mean that it is under copyright in the US though. If the work was first published in the US and it lacked notice, it might get more interesting -- but we would want concrete evidence for that lack of notice; we can't rely on assumptions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
w:Yellow Submarine (film) was released (published?) in July in the UK but not until November in the USA so the 30 day limit is out. Does Template:PD-US-no notice need to be re-worded to first published in the US? I was just hoping fan art allowed here included original versions that didn't use elements directly from the protected ones. I can now assume that any fan art that closely resembles the protected versions is not allowed to be hosted here. At least my sleigh and reindeer are original. They took far more time and effort to build than the sub. They were made completely in world without Blender. Category:Vehicles from Second Life already has many good images so I don't think I will bother making a new sub. I made the Beatles one just because of the tutorial.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
"first" or "simultaneously published", yes. I think that template assumes that it is a U.S.-origin work to begin with. It really doesn't apply on its own to foreign works at all, due to the URAA. It is usually assumed to apply to foreign-published works since the vast majority of those (outside of say books and movies) were published without a copyright notice, but it would only be still valid if a work was also public domain in its source country on the URAA date. {{PD-URAA}} is probably a better tag for that situation, since it mentions both sides (though it incorrectly fails to give February 1989 as the last date something could have been published without notice to lose its copyright -- after March 1 that year, lack of notice did not affect copyright, but the tag just says "after 1978", not "between 1978 and 1989"). PD-1923 is different, because those would be beyond the outer limit of the term that U.S. law allows, so that tag alone is enough for the U.S. status. Whether the yellow sumbarine counts as a derivative work or not, I'm not as sure -- but the original is still under copyright given those facts above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I think we can trust you with template wording, Carl. I still hope there is some way to get my sub hosted. Was TOO in UK low in 1968? The original was really old 2D work and the new one is 3D. The graphics were rendered in my video card in Canada and FOP (virtual world) in Canada may apply. We also have w:Lex loci protectionis and Commons:Lex loci protectionis which I found after the DR. Source country is FOP/Blender creation in Cananda but claim country would be UK or USA.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-US-no notice}} appears to require either that the work was first published in the United States (or published there within 30 days after the first publication), or that the author was a US citizen residing in the United States. The publication without copyright notice doesn't have to be the first publication and doesn't have to be in the US. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's an old case, but Merriam v. United Dictionary Co. (1906) ruled that the existence of foreign copies without US copyright notice did not void the copyright on the US copies with copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Origin of File:King_Arthur_and_the_Knights_of_the_Round_Table.jpg

File:King_Arthur_and_the_Knights_of_the_Round_Table.jpg is used throughout various Wikimedia Foundation wikis, and the same image can be found on various different web sites. It looks like it comes from the Middle Ages, but from where more specifically does the image originate?

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Combined Anonymous-EU / 1923 template?

Since there are now many combined templates in the post-URAA world, it might be nice to have a template for images which are Anonymous-EU and also first published before 1923... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that combined templates are a good idea. There are lots of USA templates and lots of non-USA templates and creating combination templates for all combinations would just be messy. Try {{PD-two}} instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't {{PD-anon-1923}} cover that situation? Jafeluv (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
That works, thanks (but it seems hard to find by starting from Anonymous-EU)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Stale undeletion request regarding Moldovan FOP cases

Hi. Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-07#Files_under_Category:Moldovan_FOP_cases. The request was closed because of (I believe) no community interest, and the admin suggested asking here for opinions. More images have been added in the category since then and now the impact of the decision on the matter is greater. What do we do? //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 5 August 2013 13:23 (UTC)

It has already been discussed at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#FoP in the Republic of Moldova. The closing sysop may not have read the discussion. It could be a good idea to mention it in future undeletion requests. However, the undeletion request was unspecific and it may be difficult for an average user to know what type of work is pictured on each file and to know if it should be undeleted or not. If you are familiar with the deleted files or if you can guess from their titles, perhaps you can identify the photos that picture buildings and request specifically the undeletion of those files. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Kind thanks for your answer, Asclepias!
All those files meet the same criteria: they were deleted because FOP was believed to be restricted in Moldova. Respectively, the undeletion request refers to all of them as a batch, with this single reason: per changes made at COM:FOP#Moldova (changes = we find FOP in Moldova as being permissive enough now).
Now speaking about knowing if a file should be undeleted or not; from what I remember, all of the files are:
  • a work of architecture or sculpture
  • located in a public place
  • located within Moldova borders (thus affected by Moldovan law).
If we happen to find files not meeting these criterion, I'll request their repeated deletion. Regards. //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 5 August 2013 16:54 (UTC)
I'll help to undelete the necessary images from Category:Moldovan FOP cases. There are likely to be many more images which aren't in this category; perhaps a search of FOP+Moldova or other related terms in DRs might help to unearth many more which could be safely undeleted. Drop me a line with any such images. russavia (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Russavia. Thanks for your support.
I have found a couple more images and I have bought them into Category:Moldovan FOP cases. You'll see them in place.
Again, thank you for taking care of this. Regards. //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 5 August 2013 23:18 (UTC)
No worries, glad to help. It will take me a couple of days as I will do them in small batches. Feel free to add anymore DRs to that category and I will take care of the undeletion. russavia (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian stamps

What's the actual copyright status of Hungarian stamps? The page Commons:Stamps/Public domain states they're in the public domain as official works, whereas the last discussion I've found ([1]) states they're free only 70+1 year after the death of the designer. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Photographs of origami

I uploaded nearly 200 photographs of origami last year from Flickr, but have now raised 164 of these photographs up for a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Koi" (Design by Michael LaFosse) (3600763089).jpg on the basis that many appear to be original designs. I am keeping some in the parent category that appear either too simple to be copyrightable, mathematical forms or may be on an open licence due to being variations of the android logo. This builds on a previous case mentioned in the DR (Origami by Archivaldo).

I would appreciate comments from anyone interested in the nature of traditional and modern origami designs and who may have a view on liminal cases. -- (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Prince George of Cambridge's birth certificate

Yes check.svg Resolved— Cheers, JackLee talk 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is genuine or how it got on to the Internet, but do you think it is a copyrighted literary work or de minimis? — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:George-birth-certificate.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 August 2013‎ (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a second

Is it authorised ? if you look at Copying of birth, death, marriage and civil partnership certificates document (on page 2) it specificity excludes "authorise[ing] you to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals" correct me if I am wrong but of the three persons named on the certificate all are living. LGA talkedits 13:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible that the uploader might have contravened the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act (presumably the right to privacy). However, these are non-copyright restrictions. From a copyright point of view there is no problem having a copy of the document in the Commons, because the document you referred to clearly states: "The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms." — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of Indian photographs

Currently Template:PD-India states: "According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Chapter V Section 25), Anonymous works, photographs, cinematographic works, sound recordings, government works, and works of corporate authorship or of international organizations enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published [...] Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation, as per the Copyright Act 1911." But at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-10#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Gandhi_and_Jinnah_Bombay_1944.jpg, Carl Lindberg explains: "photographs taken in India in 1907 or earlier [...] would therefore have expired before that 1957 Act went into effect in January 1958. However, it would seem that anything taken later would then get the new terms, which were 50 years from publication. The 1956 UK Copyright Act had an explicit section which said that photographs taken earlier than the effective date (mid-1957) still had the term based on creation, but I don't see a similar clause in the 1957 Indian legislation." In short, the text of this template appears to be misleading, and has led to confusion in deletion requests such as this one. Can we get a clear consensus about what terms are for Indian photographs and edit the template accordingly? Dcoetzee (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment about the Canadian law in Commons:Deletion requests/File:V. A. Sundaram with C. Rajagopalachari in Benares 1948.jpg is wrong as no photos taken before 1949 are protected by copyright in Canada, per {{PD-Canada}}. It is unclear whether the photo is copyrighted in India as we don't know when the photo was first published. The photo is not in the public domain in the United States for the reasons stated in the deletion request.
The British copyright act has a section about non-extension of the term for existing copyrights, but I think that User:Clindberg found that the Indian law didn't seem to contain any such section, implying that only pre-1908 photos are guaranteed to be in the public domain in India (unless you can prove publication). --Stefan4 (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Kastell Vemania (Bettmauer)b.JPG

File:Kastell Vemania (Bettmauer)b.JPG does have {{PD-Art|FOP}} instead of license applied to self made image. Both PD-Art and FOP are helper templates not valid without a proper license, so the image should be tagged as {{no license}}. Shall we have separate license for 2D scans/photos of FOP objects? --Jarekt (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to host them, then yes if only to prevent confusion. But we need to figure out the status. Most particularly, FOP, at least in most countries, does not place the original work itself in the public domain but instead amounts to an implied license to make derivative photographs, subject to various restrictions. So by my reading PD-Art does not apply, but it is effectively a licensed image whether or not eligible for US copyright in its own right. The open questions include whether that effective license is sufficiently free and whether it extends to the US. Dankarl (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Choosing between {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}

I change File:Gramophone-1923.jpg to use {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}; should I have used {{Anonymous-EU}} instead? It's not clear why these two license tags both exist. 67.100.127.230 01:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}:

The copyright of this image has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship (anonymous or pseudonymous), and no subsequent claim of authorship was made in the 70 years following its first publication. To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions:
  1. published over 70 years ago, and
  2. the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication.
Images that lack either of these two conditions should not use this template.Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication. Works which had not entered Public Domain in their country in 1996 should be marked additionally with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}

{{Anonymous-EU}}:

This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous. This applies to the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed their identity.
Important: Always mention where the image comes from, as far as possible, and make sure the author never claimed authorship.
Note: In Germany and possibly other countries, certain anonymous works published before July 1, 1995 are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author. See Aktuelle Rechtslage in Deutschland, last paragraph. If the author identified her/himself publicly, do not use this template. If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous (e.g., published only under a corporate or organization's name), use this template for images published more than 70 years ago.
For a work made available to the public in the United Kingdom, please consider using {{PD-UK-unknown}} instead.
  • Not if they were PD in 1996. If it was a 70-year anonymous term which started in 1923 in Germany, it was PD in 1996 and not restored by the URAA. For France, the terms were 50 years + wartime extensions, so more material was PD there in 1996. As for the two tags, they are currently the same thing. The EU does have a slight distinction between copyrights where the initial owner was a "legal person" (i.e. corporation) and where it was a natural person, in that for the former the author had to be mentioned on the publications made by the company in order to get the 70pma term; if it is the latter than the author can identify themselves at any time in the 70 years. But, I think it's the latter case for France and Germany, and Anonymous-EU is probably the best one there (the no-author-disclosure one might be more easily turned into the other situation, even if it is not right now). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Inherited photos

Hello. I have inherited a bunch of photos from an old (dead) relative of me. He (the photographer) has not been dead for 70 years yet but I, as the owner of the photos would like to upload them anyway. What licence should I use? - Averater (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Heirs-license should work on top of the license. You may wish to check with other family members as well. {Heirs-license|1=username|2=five other heirs} I don't think you need all the other names, just a head count.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so I cant assume the copyright now belongs to me as I got the photos? I have a very big family so to ask a substantial number of them is a hard job, just 5 is very easy, does that matter? - Averater (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how copyright passes. Without giving legal advice you could ask the executor for a copy of the will. The will may an "everything else goes to..." statement that may cover copyright. Even looking up a lawyer in the phone book costs money but there should be free info online that can direct to a copy of the government law in your area. Commons should have a page somewhere or it should be created if we don't.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There was no will. Stuff was just divided between those relatives that was interested. These photos didn't anyone else want so I got them. I'll ask around if there are anyone with some kmowledge of Swedish law that can help me and upload them later (If the copyright is mine). But thank you anyway! - Averater (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The photos are probably no longer protected by copyright in Sweden if they were taken before 1969. However, they would still be protected in the United States if they weren't published a long time ago and certain other conditions also apply. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! The photos can be considered amateur photos and were taken no later than 1964 which makes the copyright expired. I'll start uploading them as soon as I've scanned them all. - Averater (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote, unless the photos have been published, the copyright has only expired in Sweden but not in the United States. Commons demands that the copyright must have expired in both countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok. It's amateur photos that have never been published anywhere. - Averater (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Without being a lawyer I'd assume the copyright was transferred with the photos, as they were offered to the other heirs, who did not care. The assumption is not unreasonable, which should give any other heir the burden of proof, if they for some reason would question it. Unless there is some contradicting explicit wording about inheriting non-material assets in the Swedish law, I think it is safe to upload the images. You will get a limited copyright also by Swedish law by publishing earlier unpublished works (hm, also unpublished photographic images?), so choose of licence is up to you (but demanding attribution of author may be good, because of the law in EU). --LPfi (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the law about simple photos (including changes which apply from 1 November 2013 and on), " Bestämmelserna i 2 § andra–fjärde styckena, 3, 7–9, 11 och 11 a §§, 12 § första och fjärde styckena, 16–21 och 23 §§, 24 § första stycket, 25–26 b, 26 e, 26 k–28, 31–38, 41–42 h och 50–52 §§ ska tillämpas på bilder som avses i denna paragraf." The extra protection for 25 years for previously unpublished works is defined in section 44 a, which is not mentioned above, so I would assume that this extra protection doesn't apply to simple photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Knotts_Berry_Farm_Logo.svg below Commons:Threshold of originality? En:wp is wondering if we should move it over here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's no problem, move it for sure. Penyulap 14:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I also doubt there should be any problem. This is pure text, so not copyright-protected in US (uploader & Commons country), thus {{PD-textlogo}}. --heb [T C E] 12:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Finnish currency

The current paragraph about the Finnish currency at Commons:Currency#Finland is unclear. At first it states: "The Bank of Finland claims that using images of banknotes and Euro coins is subject to permission.", then it states: "The Bank of Finland claims it has copyright on Finnish (i.e. mark) banknotes and states that illegal reproduction of banknotes is punishable ... as breach of copyright." Therefore, is reproduction of the Finnish markka free for Commons or not? --Eleassar (t/p) 07:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is some discussion in Swedish at User talk:LPfi#File:Aland passport biodata page.png which also involves currency. The issue seems to be unclear. It is possible that {{PD-FinlandGov}} might apply to some or all Finnish currency. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Decisions by Finnish authorities are not subject to copyright, neither the text nor images. I have a hard time believing the design of Finnish money would not be decided by public authorities (or them being "independent works"). I suspect Bank of Finland claims copyright just as a routine measure to fight counterfeit, without much to back up with.
As long as they do claim copyright, one must of course be cautious: anybody ignoring the claim should do it knowing possible consequences (they can have some point I have not thought about, and anyway being defendant in court is not what everybody likes). The situation is awkward. I have for a long time been thinking of making an enquiry to BoF questioning their claim, but might not have time and energy for the necessary following up their answer.
--LPfi (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Review needed of user's uploads

See Special:Contributions/Light show. The claims of no copyright (e.g. File:Elayne Boosler - HBO - 1989.jpg) looks dubious to me, but I am not completely filled in on how older copyrights would work. Nymf (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we concluded that most of those stills were never copyrighted. By 1989 I am sure they would be aware that not including copyright notice would cause problems for ones that were. You can do a search at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ but I doubt it will show up. Copyrighting every film still was just too much of a pain for them. They still retained personality rights so they weren't worried about posters and coffee cups being made with the images. --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Publication country

File:Stuart Granger The Last Safari 1967.jpg. The movie was filmed in the UK but never released there according to IMDB. Can we assume the image was only published in the USA? I was going to crop to bust of just him. File:Stewart Granger in Young Bess trailer.jpg this image we are using now isn't the best.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

1) what evidence do you have for publication? 2) whats the {{PD-USGov}} tag on that file pages about? --Martin H. (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, correct license now. The interface didn't have the correct one. The publication rationale is the same as the section above. Still shots were considered published when handed out at the time the films were released. Many had copyright marks, but most did not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Same movie but this one has copyright notice in the fine print.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Licensing

As I'm new to this what is the correct way to update/tag images? or could someone update the logo on the page for me?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinings2013 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 August 2013‎ (UTC)

done. In this case of a very simple logo (way below the Commons:Threshold of originality), {{PD-textlogo}} is a good idea. --El Grafo (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinings2013 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 16 August 2013‎ (UTC)

I noticed that the current IoD logo isn't being used on the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Directors) so was trying to upload to update (http://www.iod.com/img/logo.gif).

I uploaded the image but when it came to copyright I tried using the following tag but it gave me an error about deletion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinings2013 (talk • contribs)

The license has been fixed. Ruslik (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought is it copyright free in the UK ? as there is a lower standard of originality for the UK than the US, should this be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} over at enwp and not here ? LGA talkedits 07:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
That might be a better approach. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Timothy David Snyder.jpg

This is probably missing an OTRS permission. I am not sure what to do, so I am reporting it here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I have tagged the image requesting OTRS. LGA talkedits
I tagged it DR in an edit conflict. The uploader is long gone from all the projects. Should we leave both tags for now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright on naval architecture

What's the copyright status of naval architecture? Recently, the file File:Azamara from the streets of Koper.jpg has been deleted as a copyvio, which means the whole category (Category:Azamara Journey (ship, 2000)) as well as others should be deleted... --Eleassar (t/p) 10:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Vehicles--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It depends on the jurisdiction. In many places, they will be ineligible for protection as per Canoe1967's link, but not everywhere. There is a Danish court case from 1978 (U1978.944/3H) in which a mass-produced 21-foot dinghy in fibre glass was found to be a copyright violation of a full-scale model. However, as ships are protected as buildings in Denmark, photographs of ships would be covered by the "freedom of panorama"-exception and still be okay under Danish law. I really don't know about the example in question. Peter Alberti (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that these ships look closer to architecture than industrial design / utalitarian objects like cars and are also considered 'naval architecture'. The Danish case (ships are protected as buildings in Denmark) clearly confirms this. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I would have deleted them unless there was a Slovenian precedent which demonstrated an actual possible problem (in particular, a photo of a such a work). I don't think they are automatically treated as architecture under the Berne Convention (for example, the country of origin for architecture is the country it is located in, which really can't apply to ships). Some countries do protect industrial design through copyright; most don't, but even then I'm not sure a photo would be considered a "copy". Just because someone adds the term "architecture" doesn't mean it automatically gains all the same protection as buildings -- they are different. From the sounds of it, I'd think there should be a better precedent (to show such photos could be a problem) before we start deleting on such basis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Ships are protected as buildings in Denmark with regard to the FOP portions of the copyright law according to an old government proposition. I'm not sure if they are also protected as buildings with regard to other parts of the copyright law, but that is probably irrelevant to us. COM:UA doesn't hold in lots of countries, but on the other hand, it is entirely possible that photography is allowed in many countries, even if the underlying items are copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Threshold of originality on two logos

Am I wrong in suspecting that this logo *does* fall above the threshold of originality? I believe the reason given for rejecting it as a "speedy" was intended as that given in Template:PD-textlogo (although it wasn't marked as such, only being labelled as "PD logo" in the edit summary).

Does the "simple shape and text" really extend to the graphical portion of this logo? Had it not been labelled otherwise by an admin, I would have assumed it didn't (though the text alone probably would). This really does look to involve more design than straightforward placement of shapes and text.

Also, I note that it was tagged as "missing essential source information [..] unless the source is given, the file can be speedily deleted [after] seven days". But if it's genuinely a below-the-threshold simple text/graphics logo, surely that would apply regardless of the source?

I'd also appreciate feedback on this logo which at the time I felt was a more borderline case, and now suspect may be below the threshold?

Ubcule (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the first one IMO yes does exceed the TOO and should be removed. As for the second one, it would not get over the TOO in the US and thus is free, BUT, and it is a big BUT - I don't know what the rules are in Spain; it may not be free there in which case we cant host it. LGA talkedits 20:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess I haven't been clear enuogh. You're right: PD Logo should be PD Textlogo in the summary. My assumption is/was that the logo is made of simple shapes. The few dots on top didn't gave me the impression of artwork. Same with the 2nd image. That's why I converted from speedy to regular deletion. It doesn't mean that I assume I am right or you are wrong. I wasn't 100% sure and I think you deserve a regular deletion request when I reject your speedy.
Source: No, every file on Commons has to have a source. Without it can be deleted 7 days after tagging. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I just wanted clarification on this. If the Best Western logo is below the threshold, I suspect (now) that the second logo probably is too, though. Ubcule (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

PD or not?

Files:

Are they enough simple to be in PD? Thanks in advance for reply. --Rezonansowy (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

w:File:IE page zoom.png looks fine to me. The other one is more dubious. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to say that the second image incorporates a free image from Commons - File:Windows logo - 2012.svg. --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Lyn Lifshin5.JPG

This file has had the licence amended from CC-BY-SA-3.0 to CC-BY-NC-3.0. I though NC licences weren't allowed on Commons? 87.115.182.6 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

They are allowed (although frowned upon) as long as they are accompanied by another sufficiently free license (here: GFDL 1.2). However, CC-licenses are irrevocable, so one could argue that the file is still CC-BY-SA-3.0. --El Grafo (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
CC licenses are irrevocable. Since the file was originally CC-BY-SA, anyone who reused that photo under the CC-BY-SA license is still free to do so. 24.70.2.207 06:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
In which case, the CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence should be re-added. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Added it back. --Martin H. (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't this mean that the "usage guide" is misleading since it claims that noncommercial use is only permitted under the GFDL? Yes, the CC-BY-SA-3.0 was restored further on, but this could be missed, and contradicts what was said earlier. Ubcule (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the info needs reverting to the original {{GFDL|self}} not two contrasting CC-by-sa and GFDL|cc-by-nc tags as it now has. Nthep (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Does it matter? The quality is so bad that this barely scrapes COM:SCOPE, let alone three versions of it. There's very little chance of this being useful commercially. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

BSicon licensing

An expert opinion on the applicability of {{PD-shape}} is sought of here. The question is with (re)licensing such icons as BSicon tABZglr.svg, BSicon ACC.svg, BSicon STRbl.svg, BSicon PSLa.svg, BSicon exhSKRZ-G2u.svg, , that is the majority of files in Category:Icons for railway descriptions. Thank you. YLSS (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Taiko_roppongi_jan_2011.ogv

Hey folks, I'm in the middle of improving the article for taiko on the English Wikipedia, and I'm concerned about the copyright status on this video of a taiko performance by a professional group. While I do not doubt that the video itself is owned by the uploader, I believe evidence of permission from the copyright owners (the professional group) is needed. Could someone advise on this case, please? I Jethrobot (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Performer's rights are at play here, and we have deleted similar files for that reason here, re Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radziwanowicz.OGG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Times Square percu.ogg. My instinct would be to delete, but I've opened a DR for it to be safe.--KTo288 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Flickr template

We are trying to get a template sorted for a Flickr and projects user to avoid unnecessary DRs for her Flickr images. User:Canoe1967/Kitty. I have explained about needing photographer permission for derivatives, commercial use, etc. We would like to make uploads of their images simple and painless with one OTRS number. I can assume very good faith on her part to follow commons policy and CC license requirements. I thought this forum may be the best to iron out the finer points. Feel free to edit the template before we can possibly move it to another space. I am sure she is willing to chime in here and provide input. I will invite the OTRS notice board here as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If any other information is needed from me User:KittyMcCaffery please let me know. I can email over anything to show proof of ownership. Thanks. --Kittymccaffery (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure you mean 'proof of ownership". That would involve a legal transfer of copyright. All the photographers should need to do is verify with you that they understand the release of the images under the terms of CC-by licenses.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe, You mean uploading content created by other photographers1 with attribution to a flickr user who only acts as a marketing agent for a small number of actors2 and the like with doubtfull licenses3?
Why I say this:
(1) She is obviously not a professional photographer, see the facebook profile. The photos are from pro photographers, the license requires attribution, therefore I doubt that a Creative Commons license is given or that the terms of the license are met at her flickr page.
(2) An article for Oliver Trevena, the only interesting photos in the photo stream, has been created recently by en:Special:Contributions/Veggieboomboom. The request for this simple way of uploading photos without appropriate credit for the copyright holders apparently comes from the same chanel. See the flickr page, see footer of the page http://www.olivertrevena.com/#!gallery/c199t. In the en.wp edit summary the editor claims beeing Krista Allen herself. Seems like this is not the case. Apparently a marketing agent for some actors trying to promote in Wikipedia.
(3) Doubtfull licenses because the photos at http://www.olivertrevena.com/#!gallery/c199t - the page claims CC-by license - are created by WireImage and WireImage never transfers copyright nor do they give transferable license. So a Creative Commons license for at least some of the photo at http://www.olivertrevena.com/#!gallery/c199t is simply impossible, that shows a lack of understanding some essentials of licensing: The copyright holder is the licensor and without the licensors agreement there is no license.
To summarize: No need to open a flickrwashing path for someone who tries to promote one or two people in Wikipedia. Use the normal way: Sent written permission from the copyright holders and provide correct and appropriate attribution. --Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding a few points. Many of the Wikipedia articles don't have images. I just uploaded File:Oliver Trevena headshot1.jpg to provide an image for his article. This is not using Wikipedia for promotion but simply a way for subjects of articles to have images donated by photographers. Doreen Stone is one of the main photographers used and I think her and Kitty are simply trying to smooth the uploads for use in articles. I didn't realize that she had also rights managed her work to WireImage. I don't think she would have signed over exclusive rights to them though. I also discussed the edit summary of Veggieboomboom. There was an error made there that Kitty explained to me. She is now aware of account use policy and may clarify that on her en:wp page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of "Body counting room at the Rocky Flats Plant" photo

There is an article where this photo of a body counting room at the Rocky Flats Plant could be useful. (The same photo appears on this page at the US Department of Energy site.) The question is whether the photo is a US government work and thus out of copyright in the US or whether copyright restrictions apply. A US Library of Congress page about the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscape Survey Collection states that "Material in these collections is generally considered to be in the public domain," though this is not an absolute declaration. At a different Department of Energy page about the Rocky Flats Plant, there is a reference to certain photos having been "taken by various site photography contractors" which appears to be different from photos taken by US government employees.

(Assuming that the photo is out of copyright, there is the aspect where there is what looks like a mannequin torso section in the middle of the photo and the question of whether that is copyrighted as artwork, though it is not the main focus of the photo and may not be an issue.)

- Gazebo (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-NPS-HAER. See Category:Historic American Engineering Record. --Martin H. (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
From what one understands, the body counting room photo is part of the Historic American Engineering Record collection. At the same time, it is not clear as to whether all of the material in this collection is out of copyright. A photograph index mentions the photo in a list of photos taken by "various site photography contractors." Although works produced by US government employees are out of copyright in the US, works produced by independent contractors for the US government can be copyrighted. - Gazebo (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Depends on the contract. In general, if the government simply hires contractors in lieu of having employees do the work, that is equivalent to a work for hire and the works would be PD-USGov. (From the legislative notes: it can be assumed that, where a Government agency commissions a work for its own use merely as an alternative to having one of its own employees prepare the work, the right to secure a private copyright would be withheld.) For other types of contracts (say research or defense contracts) the situation is quite different, yes. For the HAER stuff though, they would have basically commissioned the photos for their own use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of Titan Sports image

I keep getting warning messages that a photo I upload is not acceptable due to licensing or copyright. I've done everything possible to correct this. This image is all over the internet on various websites, but the original came from a published book and the photo was taken by Steven Taylor. I used the book, photographer, and year as a reference to the photo. The book says "Copyright 1985 by Titan Sports, Inc." I included that. What I'm I missing or not doing correctly. The HELP/FAQ are just confusing me more. Thanks. -- 23:42, 24 August 2013‎ User:Glorfinniel

The core of the matter is simple -- has Steven Taylor and/or Titan Sports released rights to the photo so that it can be redistributed under a free license? If so, document this through OTRS. If not, then don't try to upload it here anymore. AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems like the whole think is a misunderstanding of "published" and "in the public domain" and "all over the internet" and "free". See COM:CB#Internet_images. --Martin H. (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of QR codes

I recently noticed File:Wo-st-01 QR-Lizenzcode.png which is licenced under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany. IMHO QR codes are not copyrightable and should use {{PD-shape}}. This would not extend to photographs of QR codes or copyrightable design QR codes. There are numerous CC licenced QR codes in Category:Quick Response Codes so I decided to rise this issue here rather than on a single file. Would be great to get your feedback on this issue. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree QR codes that were generated purely using a default algorithm would fall under PD-shape. Reiterating your point, where the redundancy in the graphic is increased and creative designs can be integrated, or other elements such as colours of pixels are artfully arranged, these may be copyrighted as being over the threshold. Case examples would be useful to add to a guideline. -- (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Automated creations - where there is no intellectual input to the specific outcome - by definition doesn't get any intellectual property rights. The QR code *system* has the potential for IP rights, but individual codes that are merely the output of an algorithm are uncopyrightable. Wittylama (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What is claimed to be copyrighted by the QR code? The content, or its presentation?
It's a clear principle in (UK) copyright that titles can't be copyrighted. A large QR code could express something more than this (and thus would be as subject to copyright as a typescript), but that's not what QR codes are generally used for, so not relevant here.
The expression of a QR code is defined algorithmically. There is no room for creative expression here, thus no copyright. Even under UK law that recognises non-creative labour as generating a copyright, that's not credible for a QR code.
There is technical skill and labour involved in making a physical QR code from recalcitrant materials [2][3][4]. However this is outside the scope of copyright.
There could be a copyrightable work involved in creating a representation of a QR code that was distorted in some artistic manner to achieve an aesthetic effect, whilst still being a functional barcode. Enough of this goes on with typeface design. As it's a design process rather than manufacture, it could be recorded and defined in a written manner subject to copyright. However that's not generally done for QR codes either. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The QR code system *is* patented, but the owner of the patent, Denso Wave, has clearly waved any enforcement of the patent [5] and submitted it to use as various ISO and other standards, likely as a means of getting the QR code established as a de facto standard. We can thus forget about any intellectual property rights for the QR code system. Photos of QR codes (rather than just a straight printing of the code) would be copyrighted (and can be licensed CC-BY-SA) in the usual way. An artistic presentation that exploits the redundancy in the QR code such as this page to present other material overlayed the code would almost certainly be copyrighted (and I'll check whether that image passes the WMF trademark rules). As far as the content of any QR code we'd be interested in, it's either a title (can't be copyrighted) or a URL (doubt that these can be copyrighted). Smallbones (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It may be fanciful, but there could be copyright challenges for the use of quoted text in these situations. Coding a sentence into a URL or in a Wikipedia page title/link, does not release any existing claim of copyright in that same text. I don't recall any such case as a reference (similarly I cannot recall any court ruling that URLs are not copyrightable), but one can imagine someone deliberately creating a 2,000 character URL with all sorts of copyright text in it which would introduce problems in a QRcode that re-publishes it. However, in terms of QRpedia rather than the general technology, I think this is irrelevant, as any problematic page titles would hardly last long on any of the Wikimedia projects. -- (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Look in to validity of a photo

Hello. Could more experienced users look into this file for me? (File:Arkham Origins Panel Digital.jpg) Other images by this user (who I also believe to be the same as, or working with, this user) have turned out to be copyright violations and I'm suspecting the same for this. Also, as this has been happening a lot, can it be looked into for a possible block? I work at the English Wikipedia, so am not familiar with policies here, if different. If anyone on both sites, would be kind enough to ping me at my talk page there that would be much appreciated. Thank you very much. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If this image was taken by the uploader as claimed then I do not see any problem with it. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a pretty big if. Favre1fan93 is quite right to have reservations about this claim given that four of the user's uploads have already been deleted as copyright violations. In this case, it took me about three seconds to find a higher-quality version of File:Arkham Origins Panel Digital.jpg at http://themovieandme.blogspot.com/2013/07/comic-con-2013-celebrities.html (run by Jedd Jong), published a month before it was uploaded here (and DeadStrokeKevin claims it was created the same day it was uploaded). As for the user's other uploads, File:Troy Baker Digital.jpg and File:Roger Craig Smith Digital.jpg were both grabbed from http://comiccon.thewb.com/batman-arkham-origins-gallery/, which carries the copyright notice "©2013 WBEI. All Rights Reserved.", and where they appear in less tightly cropped, higher quality versions. LX (talk, contribs) 17:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it enough to possibly look into a block of these users? They have been warned about their copyright violations, and have continued to upload more. (Don't know if they have uploaded any more since) Also, (as I am unfamiliar with the workings between Commons and the English site) would a block apply only here, or on the English site as well? And thank you LX for your quick searching to find the actual photo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I think blocking them from uploading would be fair, they've shown they are content to hide behind other user names and manipulate the system to claim items as their own so they can use them on Wikipedia. Favre and myself believe the users are the same person and have explained this multiple times on the English Wikipedia, so it is just being blatantly ignored. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots: TOO and de minimis

Hello all,

I'd very much appreciate some additional input on this soon-to-be-closed deletion request. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian copyright term

It is very confusing to have several different pages which tell different things about Indian copyright law: w:Template:PD-India, w:Template:PD-India/doc, w:Copyright law of India, {{PD-India}}, COM:CRTIND. Could all of this be clarified?

{{PD-India}} suggests that pre-1908 photos are ruled by the copyright act from 1911. However, w:Copyright law of India suggests that there was a copyright act in 1914. Should it be the 1911 act or the 1914 act?

COM:CRTIND suggests that all photos created 1908-1957 are in the public domain in India. However, COM:CRTIND suggests that such photos only are in the public domain in India if published before 1953.

w:Template:PD-India/doc suggests that all works will enter the public domain at some point. However, the other pages suggest that unpublished works are subject to perpetual copyright as long as they remain unpublished.

Can someone clarify the correct terms? If I've understood correctly, it's like this:

  • If the copyright term according to the 1914 copyright act expired before 1958, then the work is in the public domain. What were the copyright terms in this copyright act? Photos were 50 years since creation, but what about other works?
  • In all other cases, the copyright won't expire until at the earliest 60 years after publication, and unpublished works won't enter the public domain at all unless someone publishes them at some point in the future. In many some cases, the author must also have been dead for 60 years.

However, it's all very messy and I'm not sure if I've got it all right. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The UK passed a new copyright act in 1911. India followed up by essentially applying that same law within India in 1914, with a couple of local modifications. Like the UK 1911 act, photos were protected for 50 years from creation. Most works were 50 years pma. In 1956, the UK passed a new law, which took effect in 1957. In that law, the term for photos changed to 50 years from publication, along with a few other types of works (such as sound recordings). However, in the transitional notes, it noted that all photographs created before the law went into effect (sometime in June 1957) still had a term based on their creation, and did not get the new terms. So, UK photographs had much shorter terms (since changed with the EU copyright provisions to be the normal 70pma, except for Crown Copyright photos). India, though they were independent at that point, followed up by passing a new law in 1957 (which went into effect in 1958) which incorporated most of the changes in the UK law, including making photos 50 years from publication. It did include a section which indicated it was not retroactive, so anything which had expired under the old law remained PD. However I have not found anything like the UK statement that earlier photographs kept their 50 years from creation term; thus it's possible that photographs from 1908 and later needed to have been published to become PD. India increased their general term from 50 to 60 years (whether that was from publication, or pma) in 1992, retroactive to 1991. That last wrinkle has no more bearing in India nowadays, but it does come into play with URAA restorations, since works which were PD in 1991 (by the old 50-year-based rules) were still PD in India in 1996, the URAA date. So it would seem: photos created 1907 or earlier are PD; photos created later needed to have been published before 1953 (to be PD in India; 2013 - 60) or before 1941 (to be PD in the US; 1991 - 50). I guess pre-1908 photos could be US problems as well if they were never published before 1989 (or followed US formalities, etc.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The UK Act of 1956, in paragraph (1) of section 45 of its schedule 7, explicitely states the general principle that "Except in so far as it is otherwise expressly provided in this Schedule, the provisions of this Act apply in relation to things existing at the commencement of those provisions as they apply in relation to things coming into existence thereafter." Other sections of the same schedule detail the exceptions to that general rule, including the exception about photographs. The statements of the exceptions to the general rule are necessary because that particular general rule itself is specified in the first place. But if, instead, the general rule had stated that the Act did not apply to anything created before the Act, then it may not have been necessary to have a specific provision stating that the Act did not apply to photographs created before the Act. The Indian Act of 1957 does not seem to have a statement equivalent to the general rule of the UK Act. It might even seem to possibly state the opposite general principle in paragraph (5) of its section 79: "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, where any person is entitled immediately before the commencement of this Act to copyright in any work or any right in such copyright or to an interest in any such right, he shall continue to be entitled to such right or interest for the period for which he would have been entitled thereto if this Act had not come into force." We can ask if it is really what section 79(5) means or if it is about something else entirely. An Indian jurist could certainly answer that question quickly and very easily if we can find one around here. In the meantime, just for the discussion, I read this judgment from a court of appeals, which did examine section 79(5). Relevant passages : "Now the question is whether the present case would be governed by the old Act of 1914 or by the New Act of 1957. [...] The next contention of [the lawyer of the losing party] is that the legal term does not mean the legal term on the date of the agreement but legal term as extended from time to time by various amendments in the Act. [...] The arguments though alluring cannot bear the scrutiny. The whole question hinges upon whether the New Act of 1957 would govern the rights of the parties or the old Act of 1914. The saving Section 79 Sub-section (5) of the Act of 1957 leaves no room for doubt that the rights of the parties would be governed by the old Act [...]" I know that this jugment was about a license, but its wording seems to hint that the principle that it states might be applicable more generally, meaning that the extensions made by the 1957 Act to the terms of copyright do not apply to copyrights that had started to run before 1958. Anyway, there is certainly a clear answer somewhere in the Indian jurisprudence and legal doctrine if we can find where to look. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. That's an interesting take. I read that as essentially a savings clause, i.e. that any rights which happened to exist in the old law (but not the new law) would continue to exist for their old terms. In that particular case, the old law had a clause that 25 years after death, the rights to a copyright assigned during the author's lifetime would revert to the heirs. That was a right of the heirs, which (even if it did not exist as part of the new law) should still exist by virtue of that savings clause, and I think that was what the ruling you linked to was about (the special 25pma right of the heirs, not the general term of 50pma which was unchanged by the 1957 law). But, you could be right. Article 79(4) applies the scope of copyright as defined by the new law to existing works (section 14), but does not explicitly apply the term (which is a different section). That might leave open the possibility that the terms of existing works were still governed by the old law. If that is the case though, then the 1992 law (which was retroactive to 1991 and was very much intended to extend existing copyrights for 10 years) probably means any existing photo terms were extended to be based on publication at that time. I can't find the text to that amendment though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly, the author of this editorial is of the opinion that you are correct, that the 79(5) clause meant that the terms were still governed by the older act, and even the 1992 amendment (inadvertently) failed to fix that, meaning only works published since 1958 actually got extended to 60pma. The clear intent of the law was to extend works to 60pma (including those published much earlier than 1958), so it may be a question of legislative intent and the actual wording. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Copyright law of India, similarly to the same information on the websites of the the Copyright Office of India and of WIPO, says that, before the 1957 Act, copyright in India was governed by the Copyright Act of 1914, which was essentially the extension to India of the Copyright Act 1911 of the United Kingdom, which, according to the Wikipedia article Copyright Act 1911, came into force for India on October 30, 1912. I couldn't find the text of 1914 Act, but this webpage has a few informations about it. It says that the Copyright Act, 1914 of India is a short 15-section act that modifies the application of only a few provisions of the 1911 Act in India (such as some penal sanctions and the copyright term on translations). If we wanted to be formal and pedantic, we could use a wording similar to the wording used in official documents of that era, such as The Indian Copyright Regulations, 1914 and say that, before the 1957 Act, copyright in India was governed by "the Copyright Act, 1911 of the United Kingdom, as modified in its application to British India by the Indian Copyright Act, 1914". That wording may reflect the actual relation between the Act of 1911 and the Act of 1914 better than the unofficial wording found on the welcome page the Copyright Office. The Copyright Act, 1957 of India in paragraph (1) of its section 79 also uses the wording "The Indian Copyright Act, 1914, and the Copyright Act of 1911 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom as modified in its application to India by the Indian Copyright Act, 1914, are hereby repealed." Which hints that the 1911 Act did continue to be an autonomous Act that continued to have a direct application, unmediated by the 1914 Act, except for the few provisions modified by the 1914 Act. We would need to find the actual text of the 1914 Act to be really certain one way or the other. What I'm trying to say is that the actual text of the 1914 Act would tell us if we should say that the governing copyright law in British India was formally the 1914 Act (indirectly integrating the 1911 Act as a sort of huge annex) or if we should say that the governing copyright law in British India was formally the 1911 Act (with the 1914 Act being only a modificative act). The Copyright Office's webpage seems to hint at the former solution, whereas the official texts of the 1914 Regulations and of the Copyright Act, 1957 seem to hint at the latter solution. Anyway, practically, except if speaking of something that relates to the few sections whose application was modified by the Act of 1914, it is clear that the substance of the copyright law was essentially the text of the 1911 Act. So, when speaking of photographs, it seems okay and understandable to say "per the Copyright Act 1911", as the templates PD-India and PD-India-photo-1958 do. It would even seem okay and understandable to say that before the 1957 Act, most aspects of copyright in India were governed by the provisions of the Copyright Act 1911 of the United Kingdom, the only question being if, formally, those provisions applied directly or if they applied indirectly through the 1914 Act.
Regarding the durations of copyright for different types of works mentioned in various pages and templates on Commons and the English-language Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be contradictions, but they go into different levels of detail. The template PD-India of the English-language Wikipedia mentions only the general term of copyright protection and doesn't mention the other terms of protection. The template PD-India of Commons naturally mentions also the term of protection relating to photographs, and the effect of the transition from the 1911 Act to the 1957 Act. The page COM:CRTIND looks like a good attempt to present a more complete picture of the situation in a table that includes the various possibilities.
About the terms of protection under the 1911 and 1914 Acts, the text of the British 1911 Act is available there. The general term of copyright is at section 3 (life + 50 years) and the terms for certain types of works are at sections 16-24 of that Act. If the webpage with short history linked above is correct, the Indian 1914 Act introduced one modification, about the copyright term of translations.
-- Asclepias (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The text of the 1914 Act is here. I gave a link to the regulations before, which are separate from the actual law, sorry. And yes, it did put a limit on the right of translations. I think it's pretty clear that the 1957 repealed the 1911/1914 acts, except with respect to the savings clause, and of course the older law would still govern actions made prior to 1958 when the new law went into effect. (Yes, the entire 1911 UK copyright act was printed as an annex to the Indian Copyright Act 1914, or at least the portions applicable to British India.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Genuine OTRS?

Hi. Can somebody verify whether this file is provided a valid OTRS ticket? It was added by a non-OTRS member. Thanks. //  Gikü  said  done  Wednesday, 28 August 2013 06:52 (UTC)

The Russian-language ticket is valid. Although I don't understand Russian, it was possible for me to ascertain this using a machine translator. The author was instucted (using their business e-mail-address) by our OTRS-agent to add the OTRS-tag himself. The author also made the file available under GFDL in the ticket, so I have added this on the file page. Nillerdk (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Official logo: which licence?

VIU-Venice International University has a new logo and I would like to upload it. Which licence should I use? I work for VIU and was granted the necessary permission to do so. Thank you for your cooperation.

Hello Silvia VIU, you have to transmit this permission per mail to the Commons OTRS team for verification. See Commons:OTRS for a description of the process and an example mail for a permission. One example uses Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which is one of the more common, free licenses here. A description of other, alternative licenses is provided at Commons:licensing. PS: you can add your user signature after a post, when you add 4 tilde characters behind it. GermanJoe (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mannequins and wax museums

Do we have a guideline for File:Michelle Pfeiffer wax model.jpg and File:Old timey selina kyle (3262626624).jpg as to mannequins and wax museums?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't wax museum pieces be considered sculpture? The medium does not matter, really. Mannequins might be a bit different... they may have been ruled utilitarian by at least oen court case, but there may be conflicting ones (particularly on separable portions like the heads, since those do not serve a utilitarian purpose to display clothes). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
We have Category:Wax museums that could be claimed as utilitarian like File:Diarama bialowieza.jpg. Practical displays created for historical educational purposes more than artistic creativity. The WMF may wish to weigh in even.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Warning template for freely licensed files?

See this case from the French supreme court where the court ruled that foreign laws shall have no effect on who is the copyright holder in France. The court specifically rejected 17 U.S.C. § 201 for determining the copyright holder of a US work for hire, ruling that the copyright holder in France was the employee who had created the work.

I assume that this means that quite a lot of works have one copyright holder in the source country and a completely different copyright holder in France. A CC licence is only valid if the licence was granted by the copyright holder. If a work has one copyright holder in the United States and a different copyright holder in France, and the American copyright holder grants a CC licence whereas the French copyright holder does not, then the CC licence is valid only in the United States but not in France.

There have also been a few other cases where a work has one copyright holder in one country and another copyright holder in another country. For example, the Swedish supreme court ruled that works by Adolf Hitler have one copyright holder in Germany and a different copyright holder in Sweden. The French court ruling probably affects a lot more works than the Swedish one, though.

PD and FOP templates have warnings that the template only applies in certain countries and that it might not be valid elsewhere. Should we add similar warnings to other templates such as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} in the light of this French court ruling? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for posting about this decision. (Rest of comment removed)
-- Asclepias (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm very sorry. I think my previous comment was completely wrong. So much that I'm removing it entirely, so as to not uselessly send this discussion on a wrong track. For my penance, I'll try to find and read the lower court's judgment and come back with a better comment tomorrow. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
We usually just assert our files are Free in their source nation and in the US. This shouldn't be a problem with any files originating in France. Moreover, I don't have a clue how to figure out where the lines differ without case by case analysis with more information then we have. Just another booby-trap in international copyright that we don't know how to protect anyone from, I guess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please help this editor

Please visit User talk:AspieNo1 where you can see an editor who has trouble understanding how things work with respect to copyright items. Before you offer help please read en:WP:AUTISM to learn about the way his/her challenges can manifest themselves.

S/he is an editor who has great good will, but a difficulty in communicating in a concise manner, and who needs careful advice in order to cope with the rules on copyright here. Someone to guide them through the OTRS system would be appreciated. That person must have huge reserves of patience. Timtrent (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Memorial plaque

File:Cavenaugh Park Walnut Ridge AR 2013-04-27 015.jpg Should we just delete this? I am sure it is copyvio according to one of our policies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done deleted. LGA talkedits 05:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to use GarageBand to make PDed music?

I knew some PDed musics. So I'd like to make these songs Ogg file with GarageBand. But at GarageBand license,


C. Except as otherwise indicated, you may use the Apple and third party audio file content (including, but not limited to, the Apple Loops, built-in sound files, samples and impulse responses) (collectively the “Audio Content”), contained in or otherwise included with the Apple Software, on a royalty-free basis, to create your own original soundtracks for your film, video and audio projects. You may broadcast and/or distribute your own soundtracks that were created using the Audio Content, however, individual Apple loops, audio files, sound settings, samples and impulse responses may not be commercially or otherwise distributed on a standalone basis, nor may they be repackaged in whole or in part as audio samples, sound files, sound effects or music beds.


Is it possible? Should I publish These musics for public domain? or possible to publish these music for CCL?--콩가루 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)