Commons talk:Derivative works

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] Image Description

Says: A photograph of the Venus de Milo is a derivative work. Luckily, the artist died more than 2000 years ago, so the statue is in the public domain - no copyright problems here! If you create a replica of the statue, it's not copyrightable by you, either. - Is this true? Can we search Google for sculptures or something whichs creator died over 100 years before? --Stefan-Xp 07:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if the photo is PD-old or freely licensed --Fb78 18:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So in fact the description is wrong? --Stefan-Xp 20:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

By "it", I didn't mean the photograph, but the replica. The sentence leads to misunderstandings, so I removed it. --Fb78 23:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this image has had caption with the phrase Luckyly, the artist died... for years. I understand people has to die somewhen, and that humanity takes advantage of expiration of copyirights, but I don't think it's good taste to describe an author's death as a lucky event. --Javier ME (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modell Recreations

Is it allowed to photograph Modells of real things, which are exactly the same, just in another scale? --Stefan-Xp 08:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily; there are numerous court cases in the United States finding that a scale model of a public domain object was copyrighted, because the reduction and simplification of details in the model required creative decisionmaking. Postdlf 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surely you may take a picture?

«By taking a picture, you do create a copyright for your own work (i.e. the photograph). At the same time, the rights of the original still exists and don't go away. By taking the picture, you do something only the original copyright holder is allowed to do.»

About the last sentence in italics. Afaik, you are allowed to take the picture, you just may not release it publicly. -Samulili 08:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps it should say "publishing" not "taking". pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you interpret the line "The owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights (...) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work"? --Fb78 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a matter of debate and that's why there is Commons:Panorama freedom in some countries. -- Ayacop 09:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PD-old

There seems to be a misunderstanding about PD-old. You don't need to mention the source of a PD-old image. If the copyright of a work is expired, no one holds any rights to the image. If someone puts it up his/her webpage, he holds no rights to it. If he/she requires to have their name or website mentioned, that might even be illegal in some legislations, because you can't take PD-old images and say you have rights on them if it isn't so. --Fb78 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you need to specify the source so other can verify that the image is PD-old? Kjetil_r 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course, but that is no legal requirement, only an internal one. Most links to third party sites are pretty useless when it comes to PD claims (see all the misleading PD claims from archives, image collections etc.) When you upload an image, you should specify its creator and, if possible, the death date of the creator and the time when it was created. Those are the things that are important, not where exactly you got the image from. --Fb78 23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between a legal requirement and an internal one?? We still require it! Obviously a website is not the best source but it's better than nothing (which is what we frequently get) and at least it's a starting point. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you're right. It's just that there seem to be so many misconceptions about copyright flying around on Commons that it's really important to tell people the actual facts. What's legal, what's not, what information has to be provided, why does it have to be provided. Let me put it this way: We're pushing the envelope of the law sometimes, but we respect it. There's no need to be more restrictive than copyright law itself. So we have to clearly tell people: PD images are free information, no one can claim it's their property. That's important to know! Then again, they must give us information so we can double-check the status, because there are too many doubtful cases.

By the way, question: Do you happen to know if there ever was a voting or anything about which country's legislations have to be taken into account? Legally spoken, you can be sued for copyright infringement in any country of the world, but it would probably be more practical if we require e.g. PD images to be PD in their country of origin and in the US as well.

Also, I suggest pages that clarify Commons:PD-old and Commons:Panorama freedom. I could create such pages, if anyone - like you, pfctdayelise - thinks it's a good idea. --Fb78 09:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at User:Alx/Sandbox — a working draft for your proposed Commons:Panorama freedom. Lupo 11:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Maybe we can break it down into one pretty table with colors and everything? --Fb78 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, try it. I'm not too good with tables myself. When coloring, beware of special cases (such as the UK, where murals and other 2D artwork are not covered, whereas they do seem to be covered by the Swiss version of Panoramafreiheit!) BTW, thanks for the link to de:Wikipedia:Wappen! Lupo 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is always a requirement in many legislations (particularly in many European countries) to name the author of a work upon distribution because even after copyright expires, some moral rights may still subsist. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes please make Commons:Freedom of panorama (I think this is the usual translation). And please make very clear which laws apply to which countries, because not all countries have these laws. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Derivative works can be speedily deleted, right? Maybe we need a template for marking them, say {{Derivative}}. -Samulili 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can they? I have a small list of things that would qualify. Have enough been deleted on deletion requests to make it de facto policy? Kotepho 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Statues of the United States

Most of the photos in Category:Statues of the United States do not specify the creator of the statue. May I put {{nsd}} on all that do not specify the creator and then delete them after a week? Kjetil_r 20:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, stuff like this Image:Moma boccioni 03.jpg certainly has to be deleted. The Statue of Liberty is PD, I suppose. If you're not sure, don't delete. Also, I think you shouldn't use {{nsd}}, but {{copyvio}}... or maybe {{derivative}}? --Fb78 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to put {{nsd}} when I'm not sure, so the uploader has to find out. If I am sure will I delete it right away. Kjetil_r 00:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D thing

This thing about 3D, it isn't universal is it? Afaik, there is nothing in the Finnish copyright act about a photograph of a 3D object being treated differently from a photograph of a 2D object. Therefore, if I'm not mistaken, when a photograph of a PD-old statue or a framed painting is taken by a Finn and published in Finland, it can be used as such without cropping. -Samulili 08:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, now that I think of more clearly. Rather, even a picture of 2D PD-old object can't be used without a permission. -Samulili 10:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian law

I think this needs to be rewritten to emphasise the applicability of a particular country's law. I am deeply unhappy to see "derivative work, delete" slapped on things without any mention of the source nation and which laws, exactly, one is applying the concept to.

For example, Australia: Copyright Act 1968 "Division 7--Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in artistic works"

• SECT 65: Sculptures and certain other works in public places: "The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work[...]."
• SECT 66: Buildings and models of buildings: "The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model[...]."

--pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's Panorama freedom, which differs from country to country and is even unknown in some countries. It does exist e.g. in Austria (including indoor views), Germany (outdoor views only, image must also be taken from a public place: taking an image of the Hundertwasser house in Vienna from a private flat on the first floor of the building across the street and then publishing that image is ok in Austria, but not in Germany), Switzerland (including murals), or the UK (two-dimensional reproductions of three-dimensional originals only, murals excluded). It does not exist in e.g. France (and thus nighttime photos of the illuminated Eiffel tower nighttime photos of the illuminated Eiffel tower (that's the one I was thinking of. Lupo 15:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)) are, as derivative works of the lighting, which is considered art, subject to the copyright of the lighting), or Belgium (viz. the Atomium debate), and in the U.S., it exists only for images of buildings (17 USC 120), but does not exist for sculptures (see the current debate on the Chicago Millenium park). As the "Hundertwasser house" case beautifully illustrates, something may be ok in its country of origin, but forbidden in some other country. So which country's laws do you want to apply? Country of origin and U.S.? Or only U.S. law? In both cases only images of buildings may stay. Only country of origin? Then hosting some such images in the U.S. may be illegal. It's a mess, and another case on which some official guideline from our lawyers might be helpful. Lupo 11:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S.:Own images of sculptures that are out of copyright are of course ok. Lupo 11:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well normally country of origin seems to be the most appropriate. I'm not denying there's plenty of countries with stupid laws where these rights do not apply. I just would like to see some care taken. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Packaging with logos

There is one rather important matter that this article does not treat -- packaging on which a logo is present. For instance, have a look at this photo of a bottle of liquor. The copyrighted logo is the photo's principal subject, yet the bottle itself is also shown.

And what about this shot of a diet coke can that also includes a glass? Are we allowed to have pictures of consumer products on the Commons that include packaging or not? Harder still is this photo of a barn with logos and slogans on it.

I'm tempted to say that such photos whose principal subjects are logos aren't kosher, but such a rule would be easily transformable into a blanket ban on all photos of consumer products. I'm no lawyer, I give up, someone who knows what she/he's doing please comment. This issue can't be ducked, because there are already so many such photos on the Commons. --Zantastik 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Trademark law exists to protect the association of a trademark with a product. Photos that include trademarks do not remove the connection. The can with the Pepsi logo on it is obviously a can of Pepsi cola. While somebody could download the image and use it or modify it in a way that would violate the trademark, I don't think that should be Wikimedia's concern. —TheMuuj ^Talk 18:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political advertisements

I am new to this concept. But I wonder, does all the photos in Category:Political_advertising and Category:Murals per se violate copyright? Bertilvidet 12:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes. The artist who makes the mural holds the copyright to the art; a photograph of the mural is a derivative work. Same goes for graffiti art like this: [1] The latter point has been contested on this enwiki talk page and my co-debater suggested I bring the issue here. Any thoughts? Haukurth 13:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the "vandalism, not art" argument? I think that's completely bollocks. Copyright does not protect only publically accepted art but things that are original (threshold of originality). -Samulili 14:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that an artist owns a copyright on medium they do not own, cannot stop from being destroyed and cannot claim ownership of without going to jail, further ownership is not stated, nor is copyright status observable by lack of identifiable ownership. I would like to see a legal ruling supporting this, not just ones own opinion. --74.64.42.197 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs of buildings and artworks in public spaces

I don't understand the use of Positive and Negative before the lists of countries. Does Positive mean derivative works are ok or not ok? And is that only for 'permanently installed' artworks? Or public artworks in general? --Duncancumming 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue really is illegal graffiti on buildings. --74.64.42.197 Zer0faults 19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti are only a small part of the issue. (In fact, Graffiti are more complex, as we don't know whether illegally painted graffiti are eligible to copyright at all. I doubt it. Legally painted murals, however, certainly are subject to copyright.) To answer the original question: positive means the country does have "freedom of panorama". See COM:FOP for the details, which vary from country to country. Lupo 08:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threshold of originality and a motorcycle

I nominated the photograph Image:OCC-FIREBIKE.JPG for deletion in August. There was no consensus to delete the image. However, I feel that the issue wasn't discussed in the perspective of Threshold of originality. Albeit unusual, I feel simply arguing, "but it's a motorcycle" dismisses the act of artistic creation that to me clearly has been at work in this particular case, and would be in comparable cases. __meco 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Though no doubt creativity was involved in its design, and it would probably get one in all sorts of trouble if you started selling a motorbike of the same design, there is generally considered to be an exception for photography of utilitarian objects. This exception is similar in scope to the "freedom of panorama" that exists in some countries.--Pharos 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dinosaur models

Most (if not all) of the images in this category, which are all photographs of sculptures, fail to provide any source information for those sculptures. Postdlf 17:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph upload from painting owned by user

Hi, I uploaded the image of a painting into commons which I bought in 1990. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tingatinga_Zebra.JPG). On de:wikipedia I got a debate by someone questioning my right to publish this without consent of the painter. I assume that I have the right as I bought that painting in Tanzania. Who knows better? --Kipala 10:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you did not create (the creative part of) the work but the African painter, he has the copyright of the picture, not you. Even you are owning the work, you cannot release it into the Public Domain without the consent of the author. If you want to have more details, you might want to have a look at derivative works. --Matt314 15:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds wrong to me. If I buy a print, I don't get the copyright. But if I buy the original, by default, I get the copyright as well. Yes, the two can be separated, but that has to be done explicitly. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

By default, copyright, or parts thereof, are not transferred when you buy an item. So it is in fact the opposite: transferring the copyright must be explicitly stated. Samulili 12:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, believe me, if you bought a painting or sculpture from a leading modern artist, and started going into business selling reproductions, you would get your pants sued off.--Pharos 14:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My revert on graffiti

This was discussed in February on the Village Pump; see [2]. Kelly Martin 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph now to not encourage such uploads, and I hope that my version can be restored again. We cannot accept gray areas such as Nazi or Soviet pictures, and for graffiti it amounts to the same. --Rtc 11:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Would someone come to a decision on this? (One of my uploads kicked off this whole question of graffiti and street murals.) I wouldn't mind the images that I uploaded being deleted, but I would be furious if, after days of waiting around with a disputed speedy tag on my images resulted in the addition to policy, future uploads were deleted because of this waffling. If it's acceptable, the policy should say so and it should be encouraged. If it's not acceptable, such images should be deleted. There appeared to be a well-formed discussion with multiple users at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Feb#Graffiti, so I suppose it's up to Rtc to make the argument as to why they're wrong. I have no idea what the Nazi/Soviet reference means. - BanyanTree 07:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy rights

I don't think we have a page about privacy rights yet, but it seems similar to this kind of page, so maybe a similar crowd will be interested.

Anyway if we end up writing one, there is a hugely useful and relevant article at http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.shtml for the case in Australia. It also makes some comment about the UK and North America cases. And it was WRITTEN BY A LAWYER-TYPE. woot. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We have Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. The page you refer to seems to suffer from a bias and a mission which obscures neutrality. Samulili 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, how so?? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Under France: "Thankfully none of this applies in Australia. Is it only a matter of time? Let's hope not." Title: "Photography is Not (yet) a Crime". And the page ends with a petition. Maybe I don't know the backgrounds, and certainly the page is not just propaganda. But it does have a POV. Samulili 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future undeletion

Pictures that have been deleted only because of copyright will one day come out of copyright. Is there any plan to undelete them? Should there be? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of these will not come out of copyright for many decades, and who knows what the situation will be like then. It's probably not worth it to keep track of these at all, except maybe the ones that we know will enter the public domain in less than a decade.--Pharos 04:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images of products and vehicles used to identify their subjects

I've only recently found out about this policy, and I'm not clear if images of certain vehicles or objects fail this policy. For example. Wikipedia:en:Image:DDR US 1st alt.jpg is a photograph of a Dance Dance Revolution machine used at Wikipedia to identify a DDR machine. Is that a derivative? Another type is photographs of public transportation vehicles (such as busses, trains and ferries) that are used to distinguish certain bus types from other fleets. Wikipedia:en:Image:Walnut_Creek_Gillig_Trolley.JPG for example. --w^{L <speak·creatively>} 06:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to ask the same. All of this is very confusing, well, a lil bit. Eacz12 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Those examples should be fine. The idea is basically that something like a photograph of a collectible toy based on a copyrighted fictional character would be unacceptable. And likewise something that's say, just a close-up of a logo on a commercial product.--Pharos 00:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Toys" as art

The policy several times refers to "toys" as art that can't be freely photographed; but surely this only really applies to "branded" toys like action figures. I don't see such restrictions applying to photographs of yo-yos. Surely this can be clarified?--Pharos 07:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the branding itself that matters but the originality od shape. An action figure is legally 'original', but a conventionally-shaped yo-yo is not. There may, however, be copyright in any artwork on the side. --MichaelMaggs 12:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy?

After making some possibly bold edits, I realised that this page claims to be a policy. In fact, it has been categorised as a policy since its inception. Was its categorisation as policy preceded by any discussion to determine that the way it was worded had a "wide acceptance among editors"? If so, where? If it is indeed a policy, it should have {{policy}} at the top. Personally, I think it's too poorly structured and worded to be even a guideline, let alone a policy.

Just to be clear: I agree wholeheartedly that all Commons users must abide by the law. I just don't think we need to turn an imperfect guide on how not to break the law into policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Being a wiki made by non-professionals, the page naturally has its issues with quality. This issues should be addressed just the way you did. In spite of the problems, the summary does reflect a policy that has been followed since before this page (IIRC) and after it. That's why I think it's fair to label this as a policy. Samulili 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it roughly reflects a consensus here on Commons and covers some legal concepts which we are required to follow regardless of policies and guidelines. However, it simply is not stable enough nor formulated rigorously enough to be a policy. It was never tagged with {{proposed}}, and its acceptance as a supposed policy was never discussed. I'm removing the policy marking and settling for {{guideline}} as a compromise (really, even calling it a guideline should be preceded by discussion, but it's better than calling it a policy). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a greatly mistaken, process-bound view of how a wiki works. It's policy because everyone must follow it. "Policy" does not mean "we had a vote". Similarly, "guideline" does not mean "we can't be bothered to have a vote".

James F. (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mean that, since Commons policies are typically based on consensus rather than votes. This page was boldly tagged as a policy. I disagreed with that and felt that there was no demonstrated consensus for it, so as a compromise, I suggested tagging it as a guideline instead. I think that's perfectly in line with how consensus is built.

This has more to do with the state of the document than with processes. I simply felt that the page was in need of greater improvements than {{policy}} suggests. For example, while the page was still marked as a policy, it claimed that "You are not permitted on Commons to upload photographs of works of art that are still copyrighted," which is certainly not true, and not something that everyone must follow. It is, for example, perfectly permissible to upload a CC-by-sa licensed photo of a copyrighted CC-by-sa work of art. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fan art

There is an ongoing discussion about Fan Art at Commons talk:Fan art. Comments are welcome. --MichaelMaggs 07:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Mickey Mouse and other trademarked characters

What is the status of images like these within the Wikimedia commons project?

• Image:Mickey and Minnie - Parade of Dreams.JPG
• Image:Parade of Dreams - Ratatouille float 01.JPG
• Image:Parade of Dreams - Lion King float.JPG

As anyone who has attended one of these Parades at Disney theme parks, photography and videos are positively encouraged. These are all copyrighted and trademarked characters. Are the images derivative works? While we are at it, whats the status on these images (copyrighted statue etc.) in a public place. Derivative works?:

• Image:Partners Statue - Disneyland.JPG
• Image:Marvel comics chars - Universal Studios Hollywood.JPG

Again, these are in designated "photography encouraged" area of the theme parks. I'd like to know the status of these images before I upload anymore of them and waste my time later if they get deleted. Yes, I was on a holiday... and took a lot of pictures... --Eqdoktor 09:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of these are derivatives, and need to be deleted. Masses of images along these lines have gone already, but more are being uploaded all the time, and some do slip though. A good summary of the law can be found at Commons:Derivative works#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. The general rule is that 3D models and sculptures are always copyright, and unless they are old enough to be PD they can't stay here. There are exceptions in a very few countries (such as the UK), where photo of sculptures in a public place are allowed - see Freedom of panorama - but that applies neither to Disneyland Florida nor Disneyland Paris.

You mention that in Disney parks there are areas where photography is encouraged. Unfortunately, that does not mean that Disney is granting the photographer the type of free licence that is needed here. The encouragement is simply for holiday snaps for private use only. If you were to try to use one of those images commercially you would almost certainly get a lawyer's letter and quite possibly a writ. Commons requires fully free licences, including commercial use. It would be good to be able to host these images, but unfortunately we can't --MichaelMaggs 12:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have put in the request for all the above images to be speedily deleted as copyvio - derivative works unsuitable for commons. --Eqdoktor 06:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Can somebody help me? Is this picture's subject

is copyrighted? Thanks --Beyond silence 08:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mascot

I've made a picture of a mascot (Image:Carlton the Bear.jpg) at a public event in Canada. Photography was not forbidden, the person itself is not recognizable, but is a mascot a work of art and thus a derivative work? -- Cecil 22:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The mascot character is copyrighted, so yes, this is a derivative work. This is the same as a man dressed in a Mickey Mouse costume at Disneyland.--Pharos 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Carlton the bear is nothing else than a polar bear and is not copyright protected in the way Mickey Mouse is. / Fred J 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Carlton has a rather simple design. There a several more creative designs in Category:Mascots. But I don't know how teams are claiming their mascots. Even though Carlton is now deleted I hope this discussion can continue and the issue solved. -- Cecil 22:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed additions

Here's a set of coasters made from crochet, paper mache, and decoupage. The photograph is a derivative work of the original design. Commons has a clear right to host this particular image because the original crafter photographed and uploaded it.

In light of this discussion I suggest we update the wording here to include the following:

Freehand sketches or paintings that are obvious copies of a copyrighted photograph are derivative works.

Also, an unrelated suggestion that's informed some of my own recent uploads:

Utilitarian items that are the works of a craft artist are copyrightable. So although an ordinary set of coasters would not be subject to copyright, an handcrafted set of coasters would be. Uploading a photograph of this type of item could affect the artist's livelihood since the crafter may wish to continue exclusive production, or sell design instructions to a magazine, or market a kit for hobbyists to recreate the item.

Thoughts? Durova 21:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

On suggestion 2: So we are to recognize proprietary interests in "starving artist" handcrafted coasters, but not on "corporate" manufactured coasters? A double standard, no? Both have equally copyrightable 2-D designs, but they're also both utilitarian objects as I see it. I don't think allowing photographs would put kit-selling or anything like that in danger — surely this would be the same issue as for as a statue under FOP, where the sculptor retains rights to the work itself, but not the right to restrict photography.--Pharos 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See this existing policy section. Ordinary utilitarian items are exempt from copyright. What the current policy fails to articulate sufficiently is that copyright does apply to items where a substantial creative component exists separate from the utilitarian function. In the particular case of professional craft artists infringement poses a serious threat to their livelihood. It is relatively easy to imitate designs, mass produce them in a country that has a low wage scale, and resell in a country that has a higher wage scale. It's not actually a corporate/starving artist distinction. Some corporations mass produce copyrightable utilitarian items. For instance, Disney. Durova 11:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] derivative works of files from Wikimedia:Commons - always allowed?

Naturally it's allowed to create derivative works of files from Wikimedia:Commons. You must only keep the license conditions of the file.

The above is from Commons:Derivative works#Derivative works of files from Wikimedia:Commons, and it confuses me. I was directed here from a discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests where an existing Commons image A (that had a copyrighted poster in the background) was cropped to make image B (isolating the poster). A was accepted as being "free" (ie. Ok for Commons) while B was accepted as being a copyright violation (because it isolated the copyrighted poster).

Assuming US law, I *think* I understand the copyright argument (that A is copyright of the photographer while B is copyright of the poster maker).

Commons:Licensing under Scope of licensing seems to reinforce this interpretation:

This is often problematic, if the artwork is not the primary content of the image or is not clearly recognizable: in that case, usually only the creator of the resulting picture (recording, etc.) holds a copyright. For instance, when taking a photograph of a group of people in a museum, the photo may also show some painting on the walls. In that case the copyright of those painting does not have to be taken into account. The distinction however is not very clear.

Note that the License for all aspects has to be determined and mentioned explicitly.

Does that last sentence mean the uploader must attend to all parts of the image and specify what copyrighted elements are within? For example, "this image contains copyrighted paintings X and Y and this license does not extend to derivatives that isolate them"?

I had thought (probably wrongly I now suspect) that a Commons image was truly freely modifiable (in the copyright and licensing senses only) as long as the license conditions are observed.

So, have I understood this correctly?

If I take Image:HK Worldwide House The Beverly Hills Central Tram Stop 1.JPG (a photo of a tramstop containing copyrighted hoardings), read the CCSA license (In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s)), and make a crop of one hoarding, then the resulting cropped image becomes copyrighted by the hoarding's artist, and certainly not by me? And I would need the artist's permission to use it. And that Commons should not accept it. That seems to be what the Copyright law insists on.

Maybe my questions boil down to: should the original license indicate that there are copyrightable elements inside; and/or should Commons' Upload text add a warning that not all derivatives of free images are accepted? -Wikibob 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This section was added by me, and I see now it was a fault, sorry for that. I hide it until this objections are checked. I think you are right, we should reshape it so that thats clear. (and probably obtain more opinions..)--Luxo 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Maggs has clarified my query Commons talk:Licensing#Images with copyrighted artwork in background?. Images containing copyrighted background are in a questionable (and possibly problematic) state where as a whole they *may* not infringe copyright (only a court can decide), but that a crop could most definitely infringe copyright. The uploader is responsible (as always), but it seems Commons should not offer any guarantees. -Wikibob 10:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Maps should also be included in the list of works. User-created maps are derivatives, but since political boundaries and geographic features constitute information, such works cannot be copyrighted. The style is copyrighted though. This is a FAQ. Nichalp (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Geodata are copyrightable, not just the style. --Fb78 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How is geodata copyrightable? Nichalp (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video

Hello. I recorded a clip of a band, performing a song (may be copyrighted song), with a non professional camera and it was allowed by the band. Can it be licensed under a free licnse or not? Just to find a solution: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Arena_at_BalticProgFest.ogg Andrius Vanagas (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because it was not forbidden to record the song, it does not mean that it is allowed to release the bootleg under a free licence. At most concert locations it is not forbidden to use a non-professional camera simply for the reason that it is nearly impossible to control it (too much people in a crowd and too many mobile phones). Even if you obtain the permission to work with a professional camera at a concert, it still is not allowed to use videos. Accredidations only apply for photos. For videos, sound, ... (all things where you record copyrighted material) you need a special permission by the band in form of a contract, where they tell you what you are allowed to do and how you are allowed to use the material. Unless you don't have this kind of contract, you can't release it under a free licence. -- Cecil (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do you upload comic characters?

How do you upload comic characters? I can't find the form on the upload page. --Mr. Mario (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Read Derivative Work. -- Cecil (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I did. I still don't know how to upload it. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on which comic you think of. Your own work (something like BD-propagande colour en.jpg) can be uploaded under every free licence you like. Fan art is not allowed even it's your own work. Of course it's not allowed to upload (for example) a scaned Simpsoncomic.

--D-Kuru (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Going Merry (replica)

I have been told that the boat Going Merry (en:Going Merry#Usopp) is a 3D model of a boat depicted in the One Piece manga series. Some images I found on the internet confirm this, pointing to some similarity between the real boat and the 2D one. Is this the same situation as, e.g., the cartoon-inspired dolls and toys, etc? Or is it too general a design (after all, it's a boat) to be considered a derivative work? Patrícia ^msg 15:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the boat as such can be copyrighted. The logo on the sail and lamb head are copyrighted, but it shouldn't be a problem per Commons:De minimis. Maybe 20030712 12 July 2003 One Piece The Going Merry zoom Odaiba Tokyo Japan.jpg is a problem, because of the relatively big logo and the just copied design which filles most part of the picture.

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Statues

As I was about to upload a photo I have taken I noted that as derivative works they are not permitted (IE: Photographs of art, statues, commercial packaging and often toys), unless the statue itself is similarto the example of the Venus de Milo statue given on the article page, or (presumably) in the background of a photo and not the main image topic!

Does this include images uploaded by bots from EN:Wiki, for example this one:- File:Bremner statue.jpg, located with other similar statues in sub-category Category:Statues of association football players.

Above there is mention of the template {{Derivative}} by Samulili back in June 2006, for inclusion on uploaded images that are not usable. At what age does a statue have to be to fall within the licence of {{PD-old}}, and thus allowable for uploading? Richard Harvey (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding requests for permission

This page and the accompanying diagram intimate that if one has authorization from the copyright holder of the subject being photographed, one may take a picture of the work and upload it. However, I'm not aware that this has ever been done, nor have I ever heard of a sculpture of other three-dimensional work of art being placed under e.g. a Creative Commons license. How does this process work? Do you only need to request authorization for just a particular photo, or do you need the object itself to be under a general free license? Could Commons provide guidance about how to go about this? I presume OTRS gets involved. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Historical marker or plaque?

I see a lot of images on the commons where people have photographed historical markers or plaques, or signs. Examples include:

Orange CT historic marker.jpg
Peter Herdic Historic Marker.JPG
Nathan Clifford Historic Marker.JPG
Auburn Auto Historic Marker.jpg
Two Hearted River Historic Marker.JPG
TrinitySiteHistoricalMarkerHighwaySign.jpg

My understanding was that these signs and markers were original art work and were copyrighted, even though they are displayed in public places, and that photographs were derivative works. In each case noted above, the uploader claimed it to be original work, and in most cases released the photo into the public domain. I'm thinking they don't have that right because they don't own the copyright, and that such images should be deleted.

Are these public markers and signs copyrighted? Does it make a difference if the site is part of the federal government?

I live in Boston and could photograph a ton of such signs, but because of the risk of copyright violation I haven't. Could you clear this up for me? Thanks! Pmcyclist (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of Painting I own

Can I publish a photograph under free license of a painting that I own but was created by another who died in 1997? If so, which category would I tag it so it is not deleted? WilliamKF (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Such a photograph would be a derivative work that would violate the copyright held by that person's heirs until 2067. (Alternatively, it may be considered a mere copy of the original work - in either case you do not possess sole rights.) Physical ownership of the work confers no rights unless those rights were explicitly transferred by the sales contract. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)