Commons talk:Licensing

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
CT:L
Info non-talk.svg This page is for discussing improvements to Commons:Licensing. For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Licensing may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|LIC}}.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to an archive (Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 34 in May 2011). Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Important discussion pages (index)
Gnome User Speech.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, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

(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 If you wish to dispute an archived page, you should begin a new discussion on this page and provide a link to the archive in question.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] "No Known Restrictions" Question

Merged to Commons:Help_desk#License_Question, now archived here

[edit] Question

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Question, now archived here

[edit] Folklore art does not have copyright?

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Folklore art does not have copyright? now archived here

[edit] German PD help

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#German PD help

[edit] Romania - extension of copyright

The last phrase about Romania in this page is: "But all these shorter terms were overridden by the 1996 law, and are of historical interest only (for instance, to determine whether or not a work was still copyrighted on the URAA date)." I think this refers to the possible extension of copyright by the 1996 law, which was repair in 2004. This was a highly disputed subject, but no court decisions were made until recently. However, there are now several court decisions in favor of the hypothesis that the protection was not reinstated for public domain word:

  • Bucharest Court of Appeal, Section IX Civil and Intelectual Property, Decision 248 A from 30 November 2006 (I could not find a link for it)
  • Decision 233A (22.12.2009) from the same court: [1]

While this has no influence on Commons, as the pictures also need to be PD in the USA, I think it is important to present this correctly and therefore remove the said phrase.--Strainu (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. The text of the 1996 law does seem to indicate that copyright was retroactively restored when Romania went from 50pma to 70pma in 1996 per section 149(3). However... the current version of the law has added a crucial word "not" to that section (you say the change was made in 2004?), which would then mean that existing terms were extended but older copyrights were not restored. Is that the case? The judge in your link does quote the current version. This is somewhat odd, as EU membership (I think Romania joined in 2006) should have required them to retroactively restore works, and the current law (in section 151) claims it has implemented Council Directive 93/98/CEE, the en:Copyright Duration Directive, which required that works be restored if they were protected in an EU member country in 1995 (this was the rule which made most works re-copyrighted). However, I don't see that language in their law either -- the 1996 law would seem to have done that well enough, but if that was a mistake which was changed, it gets cloudier. So... are you saying the 1996 law was a mistake, since corrected, and now Romanian judges consider that copyrights were not restored, but rather only existing copyrights were extended? This may well have some influence on Commons, actually. The distinction is irrelevant to the URAA, since Romania had a 50 pma term on January 1, 1996, and thus works from authors who died before 1946 were not restored and remain PD in the US regardless. The question is if some of the works of those earlier authors were restored in Romania -- if not, they could be PD in both Romania and the U.S. In other words, whatever is PD in Romania is almost certainly also PD in the U.S. right now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Carl. Yes, the new law was written in 2004 and "repaired" the 1996 law. I don't think that "EU membership (I think Romania joined in 2006) should have required them to retroactively restore works" as you say. Not-retroactivity (or whatever it's called) is generaly an important part of European law (see en:Retroactive_legislation). Anyhow, both versions of the law were passed before Romania's EU accession in 2007.
I have also heard rumors (but just rumors!) that the Parliament actually wanted to restore copyright, but after the law was passed, some people claimed it was illegal to have retroactive laws, so they just said they made a "mistake". What I know for a fact is, as you said, that there are now court decision saying that the intention of the Parliament was not to extend copyright protection. You can read more about this in this questionnaire, which was written by the guy who adapted the CC licenses to Romania in preparation for the Europeana Public Domain Calculator.
I'm glad to know that this will actually have an effect on Commons. So, what else do we need to start acting upon this information? :)--Strainu (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If this finding is reliable, then {{PD-Romania}} might be adapted. --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting case. By the links you gave, the 1996 law which appeared to retroactively restore copyrights was in fact a mistake, and the 2004 version added the critical "not" which reversed the meaning, which made plain that works were not restored. The questionnaire you link does state there was a school of thought that even though it was a mistake it still had legal effect, but the court case you link seems to settle that question in favor of the original intent (well, at least the official original intent, if your rumors are true). So it would appear that the actual law in Romania is that works in the public domain on January 1, 1996, are *still* public domain there. The previous terms were often 50pma, but I think the terms depended on who inherited the copyright (some may have been 15pma). That'll be fun to document.
For the record... I think Romania is in breach of the EU copyright directive. You are correct that Europe does not like retroactive law, but the copyright directive is pretty clear that at the very least, countries must retroactively restore rights to the 70pma term. See w:Copyright_Duration_Directive#Copyright_restoration. The actual phrase was The terms of protection provided for in this Directive shall apply to all works and subject matter which are protected in at least one Member State, on the date referred to in Article 13 (1) [July 1, 1995], pursuant to national provisions on copyright or related rights or which meet the criteria for protection under Directive 92/100/EEC. While Romania was under no obligation to restore copyrights in 1996 (a further argument in favor of non-retroactivity), the 2004 Romanian law claims to have implemented that 1993 EU duration directive, but that clause is nowhere to be found. The directive has been superseded by a 2006 version, which has much the same language (Article 10), though technically Romania has not implemented that yet. The restorations cannot make actions which were legal when the works were public domain into something criminal (that is really more of what en:retroactive legislation is really about), but they can affect future uses. Still, even if Romania eventually does restore works that way, the legal situation does not change unless they actually pass such a law, so the old terms would seem to be currently valid in many cases. Using another country as an example, Italy's original extension to 70pma was non-retroactive, and I think it was not until 2002 or so that they corrected that mistake. And given that we are only about four years away from the point where the restorations would have little actual effect (by 2016, most anything that would be restored would have become PD again), they may not bother ever implementing it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
That is one very interesting analysis Carl :) It gets more interesting when you think there is no definition for "artistic pictures" (for which the term is 5/10 years)
If nobody opposes in the next few days, I will remove the final phrase from the Romania section. It will still be a problem to determine if an old picture is PD or not, but that should be handled on a case by case basis.--Strainu (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright terms for works by British corporations

Our section on UK copyright assumes that all works are either anonymous or created by a known natural person. Obviously this leaves out a huge percentage of UK works. What are the copyright terms for works created by UK corporations (where the author, the corporation, will never have a date of death)? As a bonus question, what have these copyright terms been historically? Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Typical European treatment, I believe, is that if the individual author is known (even if the copyright is owned by the corporation), it's still 70pma. I.e. the individual person is still used to determine the length of the corporation's copyright. If not known, then it's anonymous. There is a part of the EU directive which says that for works which have a "legal person" (i.e. corporation) as an author, the person making the work must be named on the initial copies made available to the public to get the 70pma terms, otherwise it's 70 years from publication (in other words, they don't get to name an author within 70 years to extend it like regular anonymous works). I'm not sure the UK actually has that last bit in their law though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Any idea how long that's been the case? Kaldari (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
And does this mean that every corporation in the EU has a designated "author", which is whoever is the youngest person at the company? ;) Kaldari (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This does not make sense. If I produce a work while working for a corporation, my employer is the copyright owner, not me, i.e. the corporation can decide to do whatever it pleases with the work, even after I leave my job. Otherwise, if I am the copyright owner, I am free to do whatever I want with my work. Yann (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really understand how the EU system is supposed to work from a practical perspective. It seems like it would be total chaos. Kaldari (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The company is the copyright owner, yes. The life of the natural person though defines the term the company gets on their copyright. From the EU directive:
3. In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection shall run for 70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public. However, when the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity, or if the author discloses his identity during the period referred to in the first sentence, the term of protection applicable shall be that laid down in paragraph 1 [70 pma].
4. Where a Member State provides for particular provisions on copyright in respect of collective works or for a legal person to be designated as the rightholder, the term of protection shall be calculated according to the provisions of paragraph 3, except if the natural persons who have created the work are identified as such in the versions of the work which are made available to the public.
I read that last part being that if the company names the natural persons, then they get a 70pma copyright term on their work. Note that I'm pretty sure that many/most European countries do not allow legal persons to technically be the first copyright owner, so the term is 70pma always (unless it qualifies as anonymous under paragraph 3, but I guess they have 70 years to name themselves). In those cases, I think companies get an exclusive transfer of rights so it is effectively the same thing, but I think it's always a natural person who is the author. I actually have not seen that paragraph 4 actually implemented in many laws, but it's there in at least a couple countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) In the "typical European treatment", the duration of copyright is always bound to a natural person, period. Even if that copyright is owned by a corporatio or other legal entity. After all, some (group of) natural person(s) created the work. BTW, in the typical European treatment, the initial copyright owner is always the creator: the (group of) natural person(s) who created the work. If the creator is employed and creates the work as part of his employment duties, that initial copyright is then typically contractually transferred to the employer. (Usually such a clause is part of the employment contract; no need to transfer the copyright for each and every little document separately.) So, if you create a "work" as part of your work for that corporation, the corporation owns the copyright (your initial copyright gets assigned to them right away), but the duration of that copyright doesn't change. It's still based on your life time. (Should add that the transfer normally does not cover the moral rights, since these are in many jurisdictions not transferable. Only the economic rights are transferred.) Lupo 07:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The UK does have "work for hire", where the corporation is in fact the first copyright owner. But yes, the natural person (if named) is still used to determine the term. Some info at w:Work for hire#Copyright_duration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
So European companies have to keep track of which employee(s) wrote or created every work they publish and then track those employees until they die to know how long they can enforce their copyrights?? Wouldn't this also create a strong incentive to only hire young people and fire old content creators? I honestly can't imagine how such a system would work in practice. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Same as with any other work done privately -- it may be difficult to track down when they died, but it's not impossible. They are human authors, in the end. If they are not named, then the companies only get the 70 years from making available to the public. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it goes back to one of the classic arguments against copyright extension; long term copyright motivates no one. Nobody is buying or selling 70-year bonds. They're paying money now (and basing their employment strategies on long-term copyright comes down to that in some way) for returns from copyright in at least 70 years; even if that wasn't a fool's bargain, what executive will cut profitability today for returns to the company after they're dead?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a response I got from Christina Angelopoulos at Europeana:

The European Term Directive in Article 1(4) does provide for cases where a legal person holds authorship of a work. In such cases the term of protection is 70 years from the making available of the work to the public. However the Directive does not apply directly and requires implementation in the national laws of the Member States. Although most Member States do not admit authorship for of a legal person, some in fact do: if you examine the [copyright] calculators carefully you will see that e.g. for the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Slovenia or Italy we do in fact offer the option of a legal person as author. In cases where a legal person cannot be recognised as author of a work, examining why will require looking into the copyright law of each individual Member State. There is no harmonisation of the notion of authorship in the EU.

Hope that's useful. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, I quoted Article 1(4) above, and it does say that 70pma still applies if the "natural persons who have created the work are identified as such in the versions of the work which are made available to the public". The UK does in fact allow a legal person to be the initial copyright owner (article 11), but as mentioned, I don't remember that EU directive clause being in their law. The basic durations are defined in article 12, which basically seems to treat corporate works as anonymous or unknown author works (i.e. {{PD-UK-unknown}}), unless of course the human author is named, in which case it is copyright like normal. I guess they distinguish "first copyright owner" and "author" in that case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] strange PD-license from Bibliothèque nationale de France

When checking recent uploads I found File:Winter, lanceur de poids 1930.JPG which is said to be from 1930, sourced to the "Bibliothèque nationale de France", credited to "Agence de presse Meurisse" and claimed to be PD, though without convincing evidence. I then came to File:Lucien Michard.jpg, uploaded already 3 weeks ago by an established Commons user and carrying a PD-old-template (IMO questionable for a shot from 1930) as well as the templates {{PD-BNF}} and Bibliothèque nationale de France. When I followed the direct-to-source link, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90474192/, again I didn't see any evidence for PD. Am I missing something here? (I hope so)
The question goes beyond these 2 images (see Category:Images from Bibliothèque nationale de France). Even if these images are considered PD in France, are they also PD in the U.S. and elsewhere? The BND-PD template says "The BNF has determined that this file is in the public domain in France. It may still be copyrighted in other countries." This seems hardly enough to host it on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps {{Anonymous-EU}} is the more intended license rather than PD-old. That was a photograph from a press agency, with no individual author noted. If that license holds, then yes, it is probably PD in the US as well, as it would have been PD in France in 1996 as well (with their 50 year term for anonymous works at the time, plus possibly an 8-year extension for WWII). Some things could depend on when the work was published (or made available to the public). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pilsudski1921-2.jpeg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:DiscursoDePilsudski1932.jpeg for the Bibliothèque nationale de France's unsourced/unproven PD claims. And see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Slavko Osterc.jpg for the trustworthiness of state agencies. ;-) --Saibo (Δ) 16:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
So one mistake made by a state agency invalidates any and all other PD determinations by any other state agencies? By the same token, I assume you think that one mistake by anyone on Commons also automatically invalidates any other PD determination anyone makes here, or will ever make? ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, you know, there are no differences in country, people or time. State agencies are standardized. </irony> :-) It was meant as a hint, as a pointer/reminder that not everything is correct what "they" write. --Saibo (Δ) 23:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Correct, anyone can make mistakes (in that case, apparently a programmatic error which associated the wrong image with the metadata/copyright determination). However, that has no real relevance here. The BNF presumably has the original copies and whatever source documentation still exists, which we don't, and still made the determination. If you know who the author was (and that info became public before 2001), that would change things, but otherwise really the Anonymous-EU tag seems the most likely one and a reasonable assumption to make (including for the two other nominations you link to). There's really no way to "prove" an unknown author, but not having one in the source documentation is a pretty strong reason to make that assumption. There is also an easy way to disprove it -- name the author. So, unless evidence of an author comes to light, I think Anonymous-EU is fine. There could be issues with images published between about 1938 and 1948 with the U.S. URAA though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi sorry for the late ping on this discussion. There was a short talk on french village pump. It seems that disregard PD tags in the gallica database of the BNF are not accurates, we already noticed multiple mistakes. It means we have to be carefull some might be rightly tagged as PD others might not. Concerning the Agence Meurisse, it seems most photos were published without credit to the author and were credited to Agence Meurisse (and the authors name was never revealed), therefore I think it should be {{Anonymous-EU}} if published more than 70 years ago. PierreSelim (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Problem or not?

The image File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png has been removed from a Wikipedia article with the reason "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice"[2] As I understand there should be no problem if an image has a requirement for attribution like "Photo: © Copyright Steinway & Sons", because the license template says "You must 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)." Furthermore, the image File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png is copyrighted, but can be used under the license "CC BY SA 3.0", which as I understand is allowed on Wikipedia. I hope that someone can tell me what the problem is if there is any problem with the image I have uploaded. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

While en-wiki is its own site and can make its own rules... that sounds like a misguided editor. I'm not aware of any policy which states anything like that. The copyright on a CC-BY work is still absolutely valid, and the credit line can just as absolutely be a full copyright notice. On the other hand, the credit does not necessarily need to be on the article page itself -- that cannot be required; having it on the image page is enough by most wiki projects' standards. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a GFDL 1.2 or CC-BY-NC 3.0 license tag template

Hi,

I have enganged with Fir0002 in a task regarding adding a CC-BY-NC 3.0 license tag to all his existing GFDL 1.2 only licensed images using my bot. The file pages currently transcludes user-specific templates in his own user space which combines camera info with an embedded gfdl 1.2 license tag, and we have previously agreed to seperate the two, as having a license tag embedded in a transcluded user-space template is against our policy in this area. However, since a CC-BY-NC license is not allowed as a stand-alone license due to its non-commercial clause (but acceptable in conjunction with the GFDL 1.2) I have to use a dual license tag template, which combines the two in normal template name space. We have for example {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-3.0}}, which is really a tripple GFDL 1.2 or later + CC-BY-SA 3.0 + CC-BY-NC 3.0 (so the template name is kinda misleading). However, I request a {{GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc 3.0}} template, which does not seem to exist. Would someone help me create that template? Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@the photographer: Just don't license files against our aims - then all is fine. --Saibo (Δ) 03:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Use {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-3.0|migration=opt-out}}. If you really need GFDL-1.2 then create a new template using {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-3.0}} as modification base. BTW it's up to the photographer to choose the license he/she want to use/likes best and that's fine as long its sufficiently free to use here at Commons.--Denniss (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is really GFDL 1.2, which is requested. I have tried to make the new template following your instruction. License tags is not really my domain, so I hope I have done it correctly? --Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
You know that the photographer is trying to be as unfree as possible (to be just able to upload his works here). --Saibo (Δ) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, GFDL-licensed images can be perfectly used, at least in online projects. And as his images seem to be high-qual, this results still in a net benefit for us. --Túrelio (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Adding a CC-BY-NC license to GFDL 1.2 only is a clear improvement. For non-commercial uses of the photograph, reuse will now be much easier. The photographer could have kept the status quo and as long as GFDL 1.2 is an allowed stand-alone license (although immensely unpractical). --Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is better than "only GFDL 1.2" - sure. Still, the sense is clear and I highly discourage that. --Saibo (Δ) 21:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Without this, we wouldn't have File:TheoVanGogh.jpg, for example. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Without what? The file you linked to is GFDL 1.2+ (and CC-by-sa-3.0 due to relicensing). Or do you mean the very low resolution? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Photos and URAA

In many countries artistic works and photographic images are treated differently. E.g. in Finland works of art are under copyright until 70 years pma, while photos that do not reach the quite high threshold of a "photographic work" are under copyright 50 years from creation. I understand that the legislation in USA does not make such a distinction.

Does this mean that "new" photos (post 1965), the copyright of which start to expire 2017 in Finland, remain under copyright in USA (and thus are not permitted here) to the extent they are regarded as works in USA?

If so, the threshold of a photographic work in USA is important also for foreign works. That means there are Finnish photos (created and published 1966-1977) of three categories: those that are regarded as works in Finland (publication+95 years and 70 years pma), those regarded as works only in USA (publication+95 only) and those not regarded as works at all (creation+50 years).

As I understand, this means some more trouble in categorization. There should probably be some guidance on the issue and perhaps new templates. The {{PD-ineligible}} is not directly suitable, as the work is not yet free, but that will be the reason of freeness after 2017, in the example case.

--LPfi (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The URAA used the law in the country of origin... if that country deemed a work public domain by virtue of expiration on the URAA date (Jan 1, 1996 usually) then its U.S. copyright did not get restored. I can't think of a reason why the shorter term for "simple" photographs would not apply in that situation. However, if restored, then yes the photo would get the full U.S. term in the United States (95 years from publication). There are almost no photos in the U.S. which are not considered copyrightable (they would have to amount to a copy, like a straight-on photo of a painting). That would not affect its expiration in the country of origin of course. From the sounds of it, restored photographs would be those which are "works" where the author died before 1926, or simple photographs created before 1966, as only those would have been PD on Jan 1, 1996. Of course, anything published before 1923 is still PD in the U.S., restored or not. Anything else which got restored is copyrighted for 95 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was thinking of those images that had not expired at the URAA date, i.e. in Finland from 1966 or later (1965+25=1990, 1966+50=2016). But if (virtually) all photos are under copyright in USA, then this does not introduce new problem with categorization. Seems like lots of thirteen-on-the-dozen photos will get some 40-70 years extra of protection :-( LPfi (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Serbia

Serbia is missing from this list. I will try to find something about it, help needed. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual way: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/ → http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=RS → http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=6838 (Law on Copyright and Related Rights (2009)) → html version. In COM:L that page should be linked: Law on Copyright and Related Rights (2009). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Stal 6

The photos on this site: [3], can be loaded with this license: [4]? Tanks --OppidumNissenae (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gang of Seven pic

There's a Gang of Seven pic on the U.S. Speaker of the House's website here. Can this be uploaded under PD-USGov? Not sure, since it's a picture of a picture. —Eustress talk 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No. It seems very unlikely that a Republican PR photo would be the work of an employee of the U.S. government created as part of that person's official duties. —LX (talk, contribs) 04:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Licensing&oldid=66863037"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Participate
Toolbox