Commons talk:Licensing

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
COM:CQ
CT:L
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 19. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Important discussion pages (index)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg

Contents


[edit] Archived discussions

[edit] By date

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23

(the dates are very approximate because some debates dragged on for months, while others became inactive very shortly)

  • Some principally important discussions are archived in separate pages. There is no point in arguing on the archived pages, because few people will read it. If you wish to dispute an archived page, you should begin a new discussion on this page and provide a link to the archive in question.

(these headers are preserved in case someone has linked to them)

[edit] Against DRM 1.0

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/ADRM

[edit] Review of license templates

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Review of license templates

[edit] U.S. patents

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/U.S. patents

[edit] Ecoport copyleft

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Ecoport copyleft

[edit] Museums Bilder

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Museums Bilder (in German)

[edit] Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed

[edit] Which countries' copyright laws determine copyright status?

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Which copyright law applies?

[edit] Still active discussions

[edit] Template protection after review

There are many country specific copyright templates on commons that need review and should be protected thereafter. Many images on commons use these templates and changing something in the template like accidentally adding a hot cat category would affect all of these and would require mass purging for all images. We should have a review department reviewing each available template and after discussion protecting it. We should discuss the layout of PD templates: Should they include why they are PD in the USA or should this be handled in another template like {{PD-Egypt}} and {{PD-Egypt-1996}}. With the URAA laws the copyright laws of a country doesn't mean that much without an explanation on why they are PD in USA. Something like {{PD-China}} doesn't work for commons because it doesn't specify why it's PD USA. And should there be templates for country specific templates for each case like found in Category:Egypt-related tags? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2009 April 23 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Airforce Academy

I would like to upload the image seen here. It was pulled from [1]. The disclaimer page states:

1. This site is provided as a public service by the USAF Academy Public Affairs. 2. Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.

Is the disclaimer sufficient? Does it being .mil have any bearing on its possible use?Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The image was taken by 2nd Lt. John Ross for the U.S. Air Force Academy. To the best of my knowledge, that makes it a work of the federal government and therefore in the public domain. I assume that's what the disclaimer is intended to mean, but it isn't very clear about it. That disclaimer alone would probably not be enough to claim that an image was in the public domain. Powers (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure the U.S. Air Force Academy is part of the Air Force, and so part of the U.S. Government as well (there are links to Department of Defense policies also applying). And, as noted, the photo was taken by a member of the Air Force itself, so it is {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}, no matter what website it is on, and can be uploaded. The filename style is also indicative of a US military photo; the "-F-" portion indicates it was taken by an Air Force member. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds to me as if they're saying "It's public domain, but we'd appreciate it if you would be kind enough to attribute us": it seems to be a nonbinding request, with which (incidentally) we at Commons must comply because we're required to attribute a source or have the image deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking they were requesting a photo credit in captions, in the traditional form "(Ross/USAFA)" or the like. Powers (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Um, no, lack of attribution is not a reason to delete. Only lack of sources to back up the claimed license. That said, it is exceptionally bad form to not credit an author when known, so obviously a credit like the above should be added. There is 17 U.S.C. 403, which basically invalidates copyright notices on derivative works claimed by another party when the bulk is uncredited U.S. government work, so there is *some* requirement to credit ;-) In this case, it is labeled a USAF photo (not really USAFA) -- but give the full name of the photographer too, obviously. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point; I was remembering that a source is required, and forgetting that we aren't absolutely required to give the name of a photographer for a PD image. Nyttend (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, that the photo was taken by a member of the Air Force is only relevant if it was taken in the course of his official duties. =) Powers (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Which makes me wonder: if a photo is taken by an average member of the US military during a military operation, is that photo PD-USGov? For example, File:1944 NormandyLST.jpg is clearly PD because it was taken by an official photographer, but what if it had been taken by one of the men who are wading ashore in the photo? Obviously they were where they were as part of their official duties, but would it be copyrightable because the average soldier's job description didn't include taking pictures? Nyttend (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It can get fuzzy -- if they were using government-owned cameras, that still would probably be a work-for-hire, as that would have been part of their duties that day (official job description or not). If taken with a personal camera, then they may well own the copyright. But, if such photographs are given to and published on official military websites, it is probably safe to assume those are PD (unless there is a specific notice otherwise). Photos taken by a soldier and self-published on say Flickr, definitely not -- those would be private and copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I was meaning exactly what you suggested in your final sentence. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe "during the course of the person's official duties" means "as part of the person's official duties" rather than "coincidentally during the same time he was on the clock". =) Powers (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Banknotes of Mozambique

The three images in Category:Banknotes of Mozambique all claim to be in the public domain (using either PD-author or PD-self), but they're clearly derivative works of the pictured currency, and so the claimed authors clearly don't have the right to release these works to the public domain. The question is, are the designs already in the public domain? Powers (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be established are (1) the relevant copyright law in Mozambique; and (2) the date of issue of the banknotes in question. Arguably the onus is on the uploader to show that the images uploaded comply with all Commons policies, so if he or she has not done so and fails to respond appropriately to requests that this be done, the images can be nominated for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Neither contributor has contributed in some time, so I don't hold out any real hope of contact. Powers (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The copyright law of Mosambique seems to be available as PDF in English at Wipo's site. Official texts, e.g. of judicial or administrative nature, are excluded, but the banknotes are hardly texts. Economic rights expire 70 years after the death of the last surviving author. I see no reason the images would be PD, but I just glanced through the law. --LPfi (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your research. =) Powers (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Using Australian Electoral Commission GIS data

I have created some maps using data from http://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/gis/GIS_Data_Download_Data_Licence.htm For example, File:Division-of-Bradfield-2007-in-Sydney.png

All they provide is a set of coordinates defining electoral district boundaries, and I generate my own images from that data using my own software. Their license page says:

"(The minimum level of attribution, which applies to simple publications, such as a map, but not including digital products, is as follows)

This product (XXXX) incorporates data that is:

© Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Electoral Commission) 2009"

I don't think they are requiring any more than attribution. Is it ok for me to upload my map images to Commons and can I release as public domain as I have done? Barrylb (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say okay to upload, not okay to say public domain: they require attribution, so you need to have an attribution template on there. You can say "My modifications are public domain, but the original file is licensed under [attribution license template]"; as far as I know, there's never a reason that you can't release your own modifications into the public domain, but only original creations or derivative works of public domain material can be entirely in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree. Because the maps that Barrylb has created are arguably "digital products", the minimum level of attribution is not applicable. Therefore, the required attribution is the following:
This product (XXXX) incorporates data that is:
© Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Electoral Commission) 2009
The Data (Commonwealth Electoral Boundaries (various years)) has been used in XXXX with the permission of the Australian Electoral Commission. The Australian Electoral Commission has not evaluated the Data as altered and incorporated within XXXX, and therefore gives no warranty regarding its accuracy, completeness, currency or suitability for any particular purpose.
Limited End-user licence provided by the Australian Electoral Commission: You may use XXXX to load, display, print and reproduce views obtained from the Data, retaining this notice, for your personal use, or use within your organisation only.
I've italicized the statement that causes me concern. My reading of it is that if one uses the data provided by the Australian Electoral Commission to produce a product, such as a map, the end-user can only load, display, etc., it for personal use or use within an organization. The end-user is not licensed to use the map for commercial purposes or to modify the map. This means that maps prepared using the Commission's data cannot be licensed to the Commons under a free licence, and therefore cannot be uploaded. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
But they say "simple publications, such as a map" can use minimum attribution and my images seem to be covered by that. It is a specific exemption. Although one could argue they are "digital products", the AEC seem to be saying otherwise. -- Barrylb (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, what the GIS licence states is "The minimum level of attribution, which applies to simple publications, such as a map, but not including digital products". This means that maps which are digital products, as yours, cannot use the minimum level of attribution.
In any case, even if you use the minimum level of attribution, the licence also states, under the headings "Grant of licence" and "End-users", that you are granted a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence "to distribute the Data or the Derivative Product to End-users". But "[t]he Licence does not entitle the Licensee to sub-licence the above rights. However the End-user may exercise limited rights conferred by the Australian Electoral Commission, as described in the copyright statements that the Licensee is to apply as stipulated below." The effect of these terms is that you may distribute a map that you have created using the data to an end-user, but cannot license the end-user to further distribute it to other persons, even if the end-user does not use the map for commercial purposes or made modified versions of it. This restriction is therefore also incompatible with Creative Commons licences and the GFDL, since an important feature of these licences is that you are giving people the right, among other things, to further distribute your work. For instance, a Creative Commons Attribution licence "lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation". And clause 2 of the GFDL provides that you are giving to others the right to "copy and distribute the Document in any medium". I'm sorry, but I don't see any way out of this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A .png file is just a map. The only requirement is {{attribution}}, which is much more free than CC or GFDL licenses. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The map in question is a derivative product made using GIS data, which can only be used in such products in accordance with certain terms and conditions. Barrylb is free to create a map not using the GIS data, in which case he may license it in any way he likes. But he has chosen to use the GIS data, in which case he is bound by the terms that govern the use of the data. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[Unindenting] Pardon what may seem to you to be a simple question, but how can data be copyrighted? Nyttend (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The data itself cannot be copyrighted, as copyright protects expression. (In the UK there is such a thing as a database right that may cover data. I don't know if there is an equivalent in the US. Anyway, that is not relevant here.) However, the use of the GIS data in derivative products such as maps in this case is subject to certain terms and conditions. My reading of them is that if someone wishes to makes use of the data to create a derivative product, then he or she is also agreeing to restrictions on how the derivative product may be exploited.
Actually, it has occurred to me that this situation may be analogous to taking photographs in a museum. Some museums only allow visitors to take photographs of their exhibits for personal use. However, the copyright in the photographs is owned by the photographer, and if the photographer then chooses to upload the photograph to the Commons under a free licence in breach of the terms imposed by the museum, this is a matter between the museum and the photographer. What this means is that the Commons may not have any objection to the photograph since the copyright holder has properly licensed it. However, the photographer may expose herself to the possibility of legal or some other action for acting in breach of the museum's terms (e.g., being barred from future entry?). Similarly, in this case Barrylb owns the copyright in the map that he has created using the GIS data, and can choose to upload it to the Commons under a Creative Commons licence or the GFDL, or even a PD licence, if he wishes to. However, he opens himself to the risk that the Australian Electoral Commission may decide to take legal action against him or disallow him from using their data in the future. However, this is a matter between him and the Commission and may not involve the Commons directly. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting angle and seems to make sense. I suspect the AEC would be unlikely to complain about what I've done. If they do complain I could remove the images. They could ask for other "remedies" too, but I'm thinking of keeping the images on here for now. Barrylb (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, then. (At your risk! :-)) Not sure what sort of GIS attribution statement you should put on the images, though. Maybe the short one, since the long one seems inconsistent with a free licence? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is a non-copyright restriction. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Logo help

File:SBK-Logo-pos-SkalaC-300dpi.JPG is the logo of some (presumably German) company, but the uploader claims it to be an own work and licenses it under GFDL and (via the license update) CC-BY-SA-3.0. Clearly these licenses are wrong, but what about the logo itself? The "source" line seems to be explaining why it's free, but I don't understand German, so would someone please apply the correct permissions template or nominate for deletion? Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure looks ineligible for copyright to me (especially given the rather high threshold for originality in Germany). I'm going to tag it as {{PD-textlogo}}; if someone disagrees, feel free to nominate it for deletion for further discussion. –Tryphon☂ 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I plugged the German text on the source website into an online translator, and it says something like this: "The most important recordings. Ready for you to download. Here you can find portraits and photos in high and low resolution for various areas of the SBK. Our press contact will be happy to get you more recordings and formats". At the bottom of the web page is "© Siemens-Betriebskrankenkasse 2009". Therefore, it seems clear that the images have not been released by the copyright holder under a free licence. However, I agree the text and graphics may be simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} to apply. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] National Maritime Museum (UK) Help

I want to use some pictures from a series of portraits by Thomas Rowlandson from the 18th century [2] to illustrate Royal Navy Officers in their respective Wikipedia articles. For example: Midshipman but I'm not exactly sure if I can just copy the image and I want some guidance on what to use for summary and licensing tags. I found two examples in the commons:

  1. File:Captainjamescookportrait.jpg, which is from here
  2. File:A_Dutch_Naval_Captain,_circa_1690-1704.jpg which has a lot better info in the summary, from [3]

If the two examples are ok, then I'm just going to go ahead and do it and model the metadata on number 2; if the two examples are not ok, then they probably need to be deleted. I appreciate your help! Kirhess (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Rowlandson died in 1827, his work is unambiguously in the public domain. If the image you wish to upload is a faithful reproduction (in other words, crop out the frames before you upload), we would consider that image also to be in the public domain. However, the UK government may disagree, as we've seen recently in another case with the National Portrait Gallery. It's up to you whether you wish to risk their wrath, but we will accept the images. Powers (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that you see if you can obtain the same images from a non-UK source. I believe the law in the UK concerning acquisition of copyright by reproducing otherwise public-domain works is currently unsettled. There is some suggestion in UK case law that if a person has to use effort to reproduce, say, an old painting that is otherwise in the public domain, for example, by adjusting the position and lighting of the painting, there is sufficient creativity associated with the resulting photograph to enable the person to assert copyright over it. The US courts do not follow this approach, and the Wikimedia Foundation adopts that position. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Taking carefully-lit photographs of paintings is one thing (in the UK), but I'm not sure scans are any different there than anywhere else -- see {{PD-scan}}. This would seem to be more of a scan, though it is hard to say for sure. That said, especially if someone is living in the UK, they may want to think about it twice, taking images directly from UK websites. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what you say about scans. In this case, though, we have no idea whether the National Maritime Museum produced digital images of paintings in their collection through scanning or photography. It may well be that they arranged for their paintings to be photographed at some stage. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] From PD to GFDL

Hi! I noticed that a lot om maps licensed as PD has been replaced by some licensed in GFDL like here [4]. Since GFDL is an "unfree" license I find that it is a shame. What do we do? Do we revert to the PD-version? Make new PD-versions? Do nothing? --MGA73 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please ask the editor who is retagging the maps why he or she is doing so. There may be a good reason for the action taken. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Doh! Silly me... See User_talk:Addicted04#Mexico_maps. Tnx --MGA73 (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems like File:Mexico template.svg is important - the image is wrongly licensed as PD but is a derivative of a GFDL image. --Martin H. (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, mystery solved. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a trend of people uploading higher quality non-PD maps over existing PD maps and changing the licensing. This is a definite no-no. New images with new licensing need to be uploaded as separate images. Otherwise you are effectively deleting old maps without discussion. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, warn editors doing so on their talk pages. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] License help

Just found a nice photo of the en:Harding Memorial at Wikitravel, http://wikitravel.org/shared/Image:Marion_OH_Warren_G_Harding_Memorial.jpg, and I'd like to upload it here. Is {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} the correct license template for this image? Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Wikitravel seems to be having technical difficulties; this image has a license tag of "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document according to the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike version 1.0 or any later version. The full text of these licenses may be found here: CC by-sa 1.0, CC by-sa 2.0, CC by-sa 2.5, CC by-sa 3.0". I don't understand CC licenses too well; that's one of the major reasons that all of my photos are PD-self. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, {{cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} is the correct licence. Make sure that you "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)": see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Free Copyright Pictures"

A celebrity's website http://www.tania.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=87 has pictures on a page entitled "Free Copyright Pictures for Tania" and says "Click here to Download" on the pictures. It appears they have an intention to release these pictures under some kind of free license, but I don't know for certain what they mean and what license I could choose here on Commons. Can we use them? -- Barrylb (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Image casebook#Press photos. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Front page of a magazine

Hi! Someone asked med of a front page of a magazine (http://www.gerstroem.dk/rorvig/images/19%20nordisk-monster.jpg / http://www.webcitation.org/5lDiDXBkd) can be on Commons with {{PD-old}}. The page shows Nordisk Mönster-Tidende (Denmark) from Juni 17, 1906. The illustrations might be made of someone named "J. Chapuis" (could not find further information about this person. Any good suggestions?--MGA73 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to find the artist. Maybe he/she was French? Plates imported from Paris? Possible names are then Jean, Jeanne, Jean(n)ette, Jacques, Jacqueline. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, don't use {{PD-old}}; it's deprecated. The image is unambiguously in the public domain in the United States (so use {{PD-1923}}), but you'll need to determine the copyright status in Denmark as well, and provide an appropriate PD tag if it's in the public domain there as well. If it's not in the public domain in Denmark, you can't upload it until it is. Powers (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Asuming, that the illustrator ("J. Chapuis") was actually an employe at the magazine, would a written permission from the Danish magazine publisher, Aller Media: official website), be sufficient? Or do the illustrator/artist still retain the rights to the pictures him/herself. --Froztbyte (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a question that you should ask the magazine publisher, if you are going to get in touch with them. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Retouched map detail

Nolli 11 norte

User:Luis Casillas claims File:Nolli 11 norte.jpg as own work released under GFDL, but it sure looks to me like it should be {{PD-Art}} or some such. Ditto for File:Nolli detail pantheon.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Italian architect and surveyor Giambattista Nolli lived from 1701 to 1756, so {{PD-art}} is appropriate. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics from a Norwegian Commission

I habe some drawings of parts of the Alexander L. Kielland oil-rig which had an accident in 1980.

This drawings are from: The "Alexander L. Kielland"-accident: From a Commission Appointed by Royal Decree of 28th March, 1980 : Report Presented to Ministry of Justice and Police, March 1981 (NOU 1981:11)

As far as I see this drawings should be public domain as stated in {{PD-NorwayGov}}.

Because the drawings were not the best, I have coloured them and added german explanations.

Which license do I have to use? {{PD-NorwayGov}} ? own work ? both or another?

--Wiki-Chris (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the drawings are in the public domain, your coloured version of the drawings are a derivative work of the original drawings that you have copyright over, so I think you should add both the {{PD-NorwayGov}} licence as well as a free licence of your choice (Creative Commons, GFDL and/or a PD licence). I would also suggest that you provide a version that does not have German text so that Wikipedia projects in other languages can also make use of the images.
However, I think you need to consider whether the drawings are in fact covered by {{PD-NorwayGov}}. The English translation of §9 of Act No. 2 of 12 May 1961 relating to Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works, etc., states:
Legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions by public authorities are not protected by this Act. This is also the case with proposals, reports and other statements which concern the public exercise of authority, and which are made by a public authority, a publicly appointed council or committee, or published by the public authorities. ... Literary, scientific or artistic works which have not been produced specially for use in documents specified in the first paragraph, and from which parts are quoted or which are reproduced in a separate appendix, are not covered by this provision. Nor shall the first paragraph apply to poetry, musical compositions or works of art. [Emphasis added.]
Drawings are "works of art", so I wonder if they are excluded from the first part of §9. Or does "works of art" mean "works of fine art", since it appears together with poetry and musical compositions? Perhaps an editor familiar with Norwegian law can comment on this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The drawings are (simple) technical drawings. One shows were the lifestations are on the platform, the other shows the columns and their connections. They are line-drawings, no shadows, no grey-scales. I would not consider them as art. --Wiki-Chris (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded them in the category "petroleum production of norway" --Wiki-Chris (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My point was that it is not clear what "works of art" in §9 of the Norwegian law means – it could either mean any sort of illustration, or only works of fine art. I don't know how accurate the English translation is, but I am inclined to think that perhaps "works of art" is intended to mean works of fine art since it appears together with "poetry" and "musical compositions". In addition, earlier in the same section "artistic works" are referred to, so presumably "artistic works" and "works of art" cannot mean the same thing. However, it would be good if someone familiar with Norwegian law could comment on this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. One thing ist, that this technical drawings were specially made for the report. So they should be pd if they are not fine art. The other thing why I suppose them to be pd is, that they are not art in the way of a painting or something you would see in a gallery. They are illustrations to understand the text of the report (therefore they have additional descripitons, what I can't bring in context with fine art). I don't know if there are qualified norwegian useres here and if somebody could confirm my assumption or falsify it, that would be great. --89.245.7.34 10:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Everything depends on what works of art in §9 of the Norwegian law means. You may want to leave messages on the talk pages of the English Wikipedia's WikiProject Norway or the Norwegian Wikipedia (bokmål/nynorsk) to see if there are any editors who can help answer our question. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
And yet the previous sentence basically says that "artistic works" created specifically for such reports are OK. So whatever the difference between an "artistic work" and "work of art" is, may matter :-) I have no real idea, but a reasonable guess would be something like a full painting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

← As a native Norwegian speaker, my understanding of the word kunstverk, used in the Norwegian version of the law and translated as works of art in the text above, does not include technical drawings. To me, it strongly implies something belonging in an art gallery or museum. I am more worried about whether § 9 applies in the first place, but that is something I have little knowledge about. Ters (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that §9 isn't applicable? The English translation suggests that it does, and it is set out on the template description page of {{PD-NorwayGov}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that it isn't applicable. It is just that I feel less sure about that part than what is meant by kunstverk/works of art. You seem sure about what I am not sure about, while I feel sure about what you are uncertain about. There should be other Norwegians around that can give you a second opinion if you want, but you might need to visit them at home (on the Norwegian Wikipedias). I have just given a common sense interpretation of a word, which is how just about everyone would read that part of the law. Ters (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you meant that based on the Norwegian text the whole of §9 was not applicable to this situation. Since you speak Norwegian, do you think you might help us by posting a message on an appropriate talk page of the Norwegian Wikipedias (bokmål/nynorsk) to see if an editor who is knowledgeable about Norwegian law is able to contribute to this discussion? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an expert either, but if we're talking about drawings like File:ALK columns fractures german.png they are IMO safely covered by PD-NorwayGov. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
They are not necessarilly safe. The term used in Norwegian is "myndighetsutøvelse" ("administration of authority"), and also copyrighted work will not be free even if they are used in a document said to be part of such "myndighetsutøvelse". The interesting thing is wetter the drawing was created as part of such "myndighetsutøvelse". 87.248.8.192 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, the drawings are stated to be from "Norsk offentlig utredning 1981:11", thus covered by "Det samme gjelder forslag, utredninger og andre uttalelser som gjelder offentlig myndighetsutøvelse, og er avgitt av offentlig myndighet, offentlig oppnevnt råd eller utvalg, eller utgitt av det offentlige." Unless the NOU-document states gives a different source for these drawings it is safe to assume they were created as part of this. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnamese stamps

I recently tagged File:Van troi execution NLF Stamp 10.15.1965.jpg, a scan of a vietnamese stamp issued by the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (Vietcong) in 1965, as having no permission. The question here is, if this stamp is already in the public domain today. User:Neozoon already posted a question on Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain, but that discussion page is only rarely visited, so I doubt we will get an answer there in time.

Neither Commons:Licensing nor Commons:Stamps/Public domain say anything about Vietnamese copyright laws, but maybe someone here can help solve this problem. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

English translations of some Vietnamese copyright laws are available on the World Intellectual Property Organization website at:
There is another law, Part Six of the Civil Code of 14 June 2005, that may be relevant but is not yet available in electronic format: see http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?id=4125.
To bring this question to the attention of editors knowledgeable about Vietnamese copyright law, you may wish to leave messages on the talk pages of the English Wikipedia's WikiProject Vietnam and the Vietnamese Wikipedia. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That was also during the Vietnam War, supposedly produced in an area controlled by a separate government and probably having completely separate laws at the time. Could get interesting :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yikes, you're right. No idea if the present copyright laws of Vietnam applied in 1965 (probably not). What's the position if we are unable to establish the copyright status of images? I suppose they have to be removed from the Commons? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I think usually the new state becomes successor in law to the previous state; all the property of South Vietnam would be property of Vietnam and all South Vietnamese copyrights would be Vietnamese copyrights. So the question is is the stamp PD under current Vietnamese law?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's right to make such a big assumption. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Only if newer copyright laws are specifically retroactive... Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Non self-made screenshots of free software

You remember when I asked if there still may be a form of neighbouring rights applying even to screenshots of free software? The whole "sure the software may be free but the author may still have rights to the presentation and display of the content" idea? This interesting RFD may set a potential precedent based off how it plays out. You might wanna take a look at it. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If the screenshot is derived work of the program and the program license is of the copyleft type, then the screenshot cannot be distributed by another license (except with the permission of the authors). What the RFD should be about is whether the screenshot is a derived work in the sense of the license and copyright law. The output of the program (such as the document produced by a word processor) is explicitly not covered by GPL, but what about the user interface?
If the GPL exclusion clause does not apply to the user interface, then the screenshot must be put under GPL, unless you are free to publish screen shots from similar proprietary programs (which Commons thinks you cannot).
Of course it is possible that the screenshot should be put, but hasn't been put, under the GPL. Then neither the one who made the screenshot nor anybody else may distribute it (other than if the making of the screenshot is regarded as trivial and therefore uncopyrightable).
(If I understand Nard the Bard correctly, the screenshots are put under GPL at the source, which is missing on the pages discussed.)
--LPfi (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The relevant clause is "output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)."
The GPL also includes a clause saying that by distributing a derived work you indicate acceptance of the license. I do not know whether the statement holds in court.
--LPfi (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Couldn't decide on license

Yes check.svg ResolvedRedrose64 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have uploaded File:The Railway Magazine October 1901 cover 688.jpg but could not decide which license was best. I put {{PD-old}} in the permission because I could not find the relevant row in the list of licenses. Is there enough information on the file's description page? I had to type it all in again because having clicked on Licensing to decide which was suitable (no real help there), on return from that page the form was blanked, apart from the filename. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You would need {{PD-UK-unknown}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's shown in Commons:Copyright tags but rather buried. Right then, I've changed the license tag. Should {{PD-old}} be (a) left in the permission; (b) moved to the Licensing section; (c) removed altogether? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Both are needed, because PD-UK-unknown only established PD in the UK, not in the US, and we need both. Conventionally, PD tags are kept right next to each other, in the Licensing section, so do that. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
✓ moved, thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Too trivial for copyright?

File:NL-Army-OF1b.gif and several images like it in Category:Military rank insignia of the Army of the Netherlands were tagged today for deletion as being without sources. These images all consist of one or more stars on a black background — are these too trivial for copyright, as it seems to me? Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Those do look too trivial for copyright, yes. -Nard the Bard 00:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright of File:Francis-Gary-Powers trial cia.jpg

(First off, I hope I've got the right place to ask this.) I noticed that File:Francis-Gary-Powers trial cia.jpg is tagged as being a work of the US government and therefore PD. This seems odd to me, as it is a photo of a trial in Moscow in 1960, and although it's possible that it was taken by a US diplomat (I'd assume they were there, given he was a US pilot on trial for spying), surely it is at least as likely that it was taken by someone else, e.g. a Soviet official or a press photographer. -- AJR | Talk 16:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the apparently inconclusive discussion at "Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Dec#Image:Francis-Gary-Powers trial cia.jpg", the source of the image is the website of the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence. I note that according to the site policies page of the website:
Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the Central Intelligence Agency Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Central Intelligence Agency's permission. We request only that the Central Intelligence Agency be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or Central Intelligence Agency, as appropriate.
If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or any other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source.
In this case, the photograph in question is from an article reproduced on the website by Alexander Orlov called "The U-2 Program: A Russian Officer Remembers: A "Hot" Front in the Cold War". At the bottom of the page is the following passage: "This article contains copyrighted material. Further dissemination is prohibited without permission of the author and the Center for the Study of Intelligence." I therefore think that the photograph is not in the public domain and has to be removed from the Commons unless both Orlov and the CIA agree to license it freely. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] License Ava Gardner

Hi, I would like to talk about the license of this photograph File:Ava Gardner.jpg. The web of Internet Archive says it is in the Public Domain. However, in this link [5], you can read: the original copyright holders retain their copyrights. So, my question is: It is in the Public Domain or not? It seems a photograph of the film Mayerling.--Aylaross (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

IIRC Ourmedia is a site which allows anyone to upload photos. Its doubtful that the person who uploaded this image is the copyright holder. Without the original source information, it would be difficult to determine the current copyright status; guessing based on when Ava Gardner was active, I'd say its unlikely that this image is in the public domain. Shell babelfish 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Internet Archive is hosted in Canada which has diffferent (and somewhat more lenient) copyright laws from many other countries. So unless an image was originally taken in Canada, it may not qualify for upload to Commons. To be specific, per Commons:Licensing#Canada "All photographs taken before 1 January, 1949 are in the public domain." That only applies to Canada though. WMF servers are located in the United States and Commons policy is to honor the copyright law of the country of origin. So in practical terms this often means that images which were taken during the second quarter of the twentieth century are eligible for Internet Archive hosting but not for WMF sites. Here's hoping that answers your question. Durova (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure the Internet Archive is hosted in the U.S. (sounds like its servers may now be somewhat mobile; see here). As for the image though, I think we need a better PD reference than the above. If it is indeed from the film Mayerling, it could not be PD due to non-renewal of the copyright, since the film is from 1968. It would have to be shown that it was published without a copyright notice -- seems pretty dubious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Greek banknotes

The copyright of Greek banknotes (see Category:Banknotes of Greece) is not owned by the Greek Government. Only regular circulation coins of a value up to 1000 drachmae were issued (minted) by the Bank of Greece on behalf of the Government. Between 1928 and 2002 the banknotes were designed, issued and owned by the Bank of Greece, which is technically a Corporation (an Anonymous Company, like the french S.A. or the german AG). In addition the designers of many banknotes are known, so a life+70 years copyright should apply. I believe that the following images are tagged incorectly:

Sv1xv (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also the following three photos of old bills fall in this category:

Sv1xv (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Compensation for releasing an image

Apologies for not posting this to the correct page (none seem to be). My question is whether anyone has been in a situation where the photographer of an image of a living person has agreed to release their image under a free license in return for a one-time monetary compensation, and in that case what you think a reasonable sum would be. I am sure it depends on many factors, but assume that the photo is a studio portrait of reasonable quality. Thanks in advance. Decltype (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing"