Commons talk:Licensing

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search


Shortcut: CT:L

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 10. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Discussion (index)
Important discussion pages

Contents


[edit] Archived discussions

[edit] By date

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

(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 If you wish to dispute an archived page, you should begin a new discussion on this page and provide a link to the archive in question.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] Category:Star Wars

Despite the language re. licensing at the top of this category in 5 languages, its subcats are chockfull of artwork, cosplayers, and other copyrighted aspects of the series, e.g. the logos.

English: Please do not upload pictures of action figures, masks and costumes. Those are considered derivative works and are subject to copyright restrictions. For further explanation, see Commons:Derivative works.

BrokenSphere 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, what a disaster. :\ Who feels like doing a mass deletion request? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Now at Commons:Deletion requests/Star Wars images‎ (though there's not actually a quick and easy consensus about all images nominated). AnonMoos 14:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chandra images - not PD-USGov-NASA?

Sorry if this has been covered before - I searched for a discussion but I couldn't find anything.

While trying to improve the source information of Image:Supernova cassiopeia-a.jpg, I've found its description page on the Chandra X-ray Observatory website. And, according to the "Image Use Policy" of that site, "The images on this web site may be used for non-commercial educational and public information purposes." I'm not sure if it means that Chandra images are copyrighted and Template:PD-USGov-NASA is not suitable for them. If the images are copyrighted, the template should be updated to include a warning similar to the one about the SOHO probe. And someone will have to delete everything in Category:Chandra images... --Daggerstab 14:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sn2006gy CHANDRA x-ray.jpg links to a OTRS ticket so more information can be found there be someone with access. Rmhermen 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is fairly complex... some images at that site are not PD, but most are. Here is an excerpt from the OTRS mail, in which the education/outreach coordinator explains how to decode permissions...

The key to the credits is:

Organization funding or owning the telescope/PI's institution/PI's name.

So NASA/CXC/UC Berkeley/N. Smith et al. indicates NASA ownership of the telescope, we add CXC to indicate Chandra, then the PI's institution and the PI and/team for intellectual credit. If there is only one iteration of these three categories, and NASA is the name indicating ownership of the telescope, then the image or material is public domain. The other places simply give credit for the science discovery. If the first set of three is followed by a comma, and another credit in which the owner of the telescope is not named as NASA, then you have to get permission from the other organization to use that other layer or layers of the image.

This particular image has the credit (permission encoding) "NASA/CXC/GSFC/U.Hwang et al." so it is PD. Maybe we need a special box for these, as there are some very spectacular images there! ++Lar: t/c 00:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Henry Rollins 2.jpg

The Flickr page for this image asserts it is "all rights reserved". What gives? Astrojunta 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Flickr allows their users to change the terms under which they distribute the images and does not keep record of previously announced terms. It has been confirmed by an administrator in April last year that the image did at that time appear with the irrevocable license stated on the image description page, so the Flickr user probably made the change some time during the last twelve months. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
And once it has been published under the most liberal license, it's "stuck" that way? Another noob question: how would WikiCommons go about proving their right to use the images if no records are kept? Thanks for your comments, Astrojunta 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned, Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, so yes, it still applies even after the author stops distributing it that way. The record we keep is the assertion of the trusted administrator that verified that the image was free. We can't really do much more without cooperation from Yahoo/Flickr, and this process still provides more documentation than is the case with, for example, uploader-created content and freely licensed content from other websites. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The author can change their license on Flickr, but anyone who obtained a copy under the older license can (permanently) continue to use their version under that license. You can't allow people to widely use an image, and then withdraw permission once it gets used... the creative commons license makes that explicit. As for proving it, that is what the Flickr review process is for (it is mostly automated but some users can do it manually). See Commons:Flickr images. Carl Lindberg 17:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Troubling. Thank you, chaps. Astrojunta 02:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Commons PD dedication?

Would it be appropriate for us to have a separate copyright tag for the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication? Or is the situation already adequately covered by existing PD tags? Kelly 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

{{CC-PD}} /Lokal_Profil 22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! I'll add it later to the copyright tag page. Kelly 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Building vs Art UK copyright

This is based on this.

UK law allows pictures of buildings to be taken from public places. This does not allow inside of buildings, artistic works, or signs.

Problem One is this, which is considered by the owner not as a building, but part of an artistic design. It is also for amusement, which isn't a "building" under the law. I am sure they would fight those selling pictures of their work, and the ability to "sell" is a necessary part of the GFDL licensing.

Problem Two is with the rest that are more obviously problematic. This picture is from inside of a building. So is this, this, and this. Also, this is a "mural"/"advertising", which does not fall under the freedom of panorama. This one isn't taken on public property.

This is a difference from having the right to have a picture for your own use (which is just about any picture) and having a picture you can sell (which is "free use" under GFDL). I hope this concern makes sense. 75.105.13.17 13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, the statement about what "public" means at the bottom of the UK Freedom of Panorama section was from a book and has no basis in actual law. It would be misleading to follow that, as many books on law have been proven to be wrong on the issue before. 75.105.13.17 14:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
UK freedom of panorama is more liberal than that of most countries in that it is applicable inside museums and all other "premises open to the public" (see COM:FOP#United Kingdom and Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, part 1, chapter 3, section 62(1)(b); in most other countries, FOP does indeed only apply outdoors). As for the London Eye not being a building, do you have any references to back that up? I would assume it required a building permit rather than an amusement permit. ;) In any case, UK FOP applies to all "works of artistic craftsmanship" in public places (cf. US FOP, which only applies to buildings), so whether or not it is a building is irrelevant. As for Image:London 501593 fh000027.jpg, you may well have a point, as that would be a temporary display. The question there is if the inclusion of the advertisements are de minimis, which I would say they are probably not. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, as I pointed out, the basis for claiming the UK is more liberal comes from a source that doesn't have the legal authority to claim such, which is a bad precedence to follow (the wording "if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public." is vague at best, and "open to the public" is hard to determine from a picture, as a picture could easily be from trespassing or the like). And "artistic craftsmanship" is not the same as art, and if there is a difference between those two, then there is a large gray area that needs to be determined on which this is. I think we need to contact the London Eye people to find out what they consider the work (as a building, as art, as amusement, etc). The law does side on the most part with what the person who owns it feels the work is. I hope this makes sense. I just don't want articles to be screwed over because the pictures caught the attention of someone who wants to push the matter legally (and the London Eye company seems to be very litigious about their copyright, look at how they handle their own homepage's). :) 75.105.13.17 15:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The basis for claiming that UK FOP applies in all premises open to the public is the wording of the law itself, which I quoted. If it were the legislators' intention for the law to apply only in outdoor places, they would have specified this. (For comparison, see the Swedish Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk, chapter 2, §24 (1).) Instead, the legislators did not stop at the phrase "situated in a public place" but felt it necessary to further add "or in premises open to the public." If this second part were meaningless, it would not be there.
I share your concerns for Commons' legal integrity, but I see no indication on the London Eye website that the owners are particularly litigious or that they make any unfounded copyright claims. As for the law siding with the owner of material objects to allow them to define immaterial rights related to the object, I'm not aware of any principles that would support that. The law sides with itself. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
LX, I just reread the law and (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv62 it says): "This section applies to—(a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. "
Note that (a) buildings are not followed by "if situation in a public place or in premises open to the public" and this clause is only behind b. That would mean that artistic craftsmanship in a building could be taken pictures of, but not the architecture of the building, unless that is determined to be a separate component (and under another copyright). Unless, however, that can be determined as "artistic craftsmanship" and not the building. This is a very complicated legal matter, and I doubt the UK thought this through in 88. 75.105.13.17 15:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if your interpretation that the "public place" provision only applies to (b) were correct, I don't see any indication that the freedom of panorama for buildings would apply only to building exteriors. Again, if that were the intention, that's what it would say. Your doubts notwithstanding, the wording of legal statute is something that tends to get quite a lot of attention and scrutiny. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I wish that lawmakers would be more explicit and specific when crafting laws instead of doing half of a job and leaving it up for courts to decide. 75.105.13.17 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
LX, I want to note that the term "panorama" by definition would not include insides of buildings, as that would no longer be "panorama". A "panorama" picture is about outside areas that would coincidentally include copyrighted objects, but the inside of a building would not have such. The "freedom" is also not a law, but an idea along the lines of "fair use", and even "fair use" has been tested and restricted. 75.105.13.17 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The law doesn't use the term panorama. Fair use is part of US law. Exactly what it means is subject to dispute but it is law. Under UK law there is no way for a photo to infinge the copyright on the london eye be it a building, work of artistic craftsmanship or useful article. If you think otherwise please build a case citeing statute or caselaw.Geni 18:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, when it comes to copyright law, the defendant would need to provide evidence as to why the item is not infringed by the picture. "Panorama" is so known as a "fair use" claim because the pictures deal with the "panorama" and coincidentally have the buildings in there, and that the pictures are intended to show a scene and not a building. However, it is obvious that the eye pictures in particular are there to show the Eye and not the panorama which coincidentally has the eye. Under UK law, there are many photos that do infringe on rights, especially if they are determined art or do not classify as buildings. A picture of a car, for example, cannot be "fair use" under "panorama". Furthermore, it is a judge, not a Wikimedia user, who determines what is and what isn't. This is to ensure that Wikimedia is not liable in such circumstances, and they are currently liable for not putting "panorama" justifications on the photos regardless of the specifics, which is troublesome. 75.105.13.17 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't comment on all the factual inaccuracies of those statements, but I will highlight the main problem: you're confusing the concepts of fair use, freedom of panorama and de minimis inclusion. They are not the same thing, and they exist as separate terms for a reason. What is usually termed fair use (not accepted at Commons) is mainly governed by sections 29-30, 32-36 and 58-60. What we tend to call freedom of panorama is only governed by section 62. De minimis inclusion is covered in section 31. Note that section 62 places no limitation on the importance of the depicted building or artwork to the depiction. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how none of the terms are actual law, I think you are discriminating between the terms in an inaccurate matter. I have had experience with copyright law, and I know about the actual freedom to use copyrighted works, which, in any case, is termed "fair use" regardless of the fancy words one tries to dress up the action with. They do not exist as separate terms, nor do they exist under UK law. What matters if one has the ability to sell and distribute an item, and what kind of licensing exists. Since there is a copyright under the item, "freedom of panorama" would be dealt with the same as a CC lisenced item. Furthermore, the spirit of section 62 definitely places the importance on the item in question, which is pointed out by its use of "public".
Furthermore, I must question your statements here, since Wikimedia, Wikipedia, et al, require any "Freedom of Panorama" pictures to be described as such and an explanation of such under this freedom, which is not happening, nor have you mentioned a willingness to require this. Such a statement as requirement is explicit that Wikimedia regards such content as not "free" to distribute without such requirements. The fact that you overlooked such an important thing as this is rather troublesome. Why would you ignore this basic requirement to using such pictures? This requirement negates most of what you have stated up to this point on this matter. 75.105.13.17 01:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Either cite statute or caselaw to back your claims or drop them. Nothing in wikipedia or wikimedia policy requires that images that include Freedom of panorama elements be labled as such.Geni 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
here "If you take a picture of a copyrighted item in a country where freedom of panorama exists and wish to use your photo on Wikipedia, be sure to note where the photo was taken and what the panorama freedom law of that locale states." Care to apologize for being wrong? And you need case law to prove that you are allowed to produce something that is clearly copyrighted, not the opposite. 75.105.13.17 01:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Um that is an essay not policy. Statute law would be acceptable if you don't have any caselaw.Geni 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You claimed it doesn't exist. I proved that you were wrong. You can continue if you want, but you have already been proven as wrong and that is enough to satisfy my part in this. 75.105.13.17 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And if you are thinking that you can dismiss it as an "essay", that is the Wikipedia equivalent to the policy. So really, you can claim one thing, but all you will be saying is that there is no "policy" on Wikipedia for "freedom of panorama" as you claim, and therefore negate any claim that Wikipedia acknowledges such a right. The simple fact that it exists in the Wikipedia's version is telling of the general thought on the copyright issue, especially when there are various countries with various understandings on the matter. 75.105.13.17 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm essays are not policy in any way shape or form. What part of "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." do you not get?Geni 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: According to here, "The author of an artistic work has the right to be identified whenever-" "in the case of a work of architecture in the form of a building or a model for a building, a sculpture or a work of artistic craftsmanship, copies of a graphic work representing it, or of a photograph of it, are issued to the public." This means that the original copyright holder must be identified in any representation of "aristic work" which is defined as "4.-(1) In this Part "artistic work" means- (a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,

(b) a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or (c) a work of artistic craftsmanship." This means that any "Freedom of Panorama" based pictures must have the copyright of the buildings identified if they are still under copyright. 75.105.13.17 01:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a moral rights clause not copyright.Geni 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, its part of the copyright. You cannot dismiss it simply because it proves you as wrong. 75.105.13.17 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Um no look at the law it is in the moral rights section. Moral rights are not part of copyright in any way shape or form (they don't really make much sense at all under common law but that's the EU for you). Moral rights are a seperate area of IP.Geni 20:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Addtionally, we don't need to identify the architect unless requested, per section 78. Doesn't hurt to add it if known, but the lack of it is not really a problem. Carl Lindberg 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the clause states that if the author/copyright holder identifies him or herself, then they must be identified in all photographs of it. There is an identification of the architects upon the building, and if they do not hold the copyright, the company that runs the Eye does. Either way, they must be identified. 75.105.13.17 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear 75.105.13.17, why are you so keen to have photographs of the London Eye deleted? Do you have some personal interest? Unfortunately, none of your deletion arguments makes much legal sense. English courts typically take a pretty common-sense view, and in my view it is almost inconceivable that they would hold that this is not a building. It required planning permisson as a building, and falls with the Secction 4(1) definition whereby ""building" includes any fixed structure, and a part of a building or fixed structure". And before you raise the point: no, the fact that part of the building is moveable does not take it outside the definition of a "fixed structure". On the all the various other issues you have raised, LX is right. --MichaelMaggs 06:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos taken by unknown amateur photographers

I was given some physical photos of a historically-important dead person for which the photographer is unknown. There are casual snapshots, not professionally taken photographs. Can I scan and put these in the Commons, or am I correct in fearing that they would be ineligible? Espertus 05:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know who the copyright holders are, you may have to wait until it is reasonable to assume that they died more than 70 years ago. If it can be shown that the work was published anonymously more than 70 years ago, that may also be acceptable. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, the photos were taken in the past fifty years. Espertus 18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images of SS Great Britain

Several years ago I uploaded some images of the en:SS Great Britain under CC-By-SA 2.5. I've just noticed that the SS Great Britain website says that "Reproduction of photos for commercial use is not permitted" [1]. I've sent a message to the SS Great Britain Trust asking whether they have an objection to the photographs, but I have yet to receive a reply. As far as I understand it, because the photographs were taken on private property, the owners of that property have the right to put constraints on the image license, which would mean that I would have to relicence them as CC-BY-SA-NC. I believe that this license is not allowed either here nor on Wikipedia, meaning that the images would have to be deleted? Thanks. Mike Peel 09:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, copyright belongs to the photographer -- not completely sure about the UK, but that would be true for this situation in the US. They could argue some form of trespass, or some sort of implied contract, though that is not too likely. See v:Museum_photography#House_rules:_legal_and_psychological_aspects. If they did not make that restriction clear to you when you actually visited (i.e. an obvious sign, or announcement, or something like that), then there is no chance of even that -- a notice put on a website wouldn't count for those. In any event, the situation is between the photographer and the museum -- it is not a copyright violation to host them, so if the photographer still wants to upload them, we will keep the photos. That said, if you feel you want to respect the museum's wishes, or feel uncomfortable about them being on commons, then we will typically let them be deleted. If you wanted to change to CC-BY-SA-NC, then yes they would have to be deleted. Carl Lindberg 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The images are perfectly OK as the ship itself has no copyright and the copyright status of the photographs is not affected by any private contract made between the site owners and the photographer. Please see Commons:Image casebook#Museum photography. --MichaelMaggs 05:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Commission Report

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CE369.jpg is about Image:CE369.jpg, but is likely to have an impact on a lot of material under Category:Assassination of John F. Kennedy for instance. As I understand it, a government report such as the WC report is PD, non PD being the exception, such as possibly (see en:WP:PD#U.S. government works) a work produced by a contractor. In other words, in order to reject the PD tag, one should have to determine that the work was produced by a contractor and that the contractor retained the copyright on this work. Feedback anybody? Bradipus 10:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A photograph is a US government work if it is produced by an employee of the government or by a contractor under a contract that explicitly states that the outcome will be a work for hire. This must be demonstrated for the PD tag to be considered valid.
Inclusion of a copyrighted photograph in a work produced by the government does not void the photographer's copyright. The government can exercise fair use like anyone else, but exemptions from copyright protection only apply to otherwise copyrightable elements of creativity introduced by the government employees (for example, the text of the report).
In this case, the modifications made to the photograph by the author of the report most likely do not merit copyright protection, regardless of the author's status as a government employee or contractor, because of the low level of originality. Consequently, it becomes a question of whether the photographer is a government employee or a contractor producing a work for hire, neither of which appear to be the case. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a much too narrow conception of PD (or a much too broad conception of the exceptions to the PD). The photograph was not produced by a photographer working as a contractor, but brought to the WC as part of the testimony of the photographer. Why would the photograph be copyrighted and not the words of the photographer during his testimony? Besides, in this case, the cropped and marked version is a derivative work in my opinion: this is not just cutting the picture and marking it, it is transforming the picture into an artefact supporting a specific point adressed by the WC. Bradipus 11:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If it were true that entering a copyrighted work into evidence would have the effect of placing it into the public domain, then we'd end up with the absurd situation that taking a copyright matter to court would be an entirely self-defeating act. As for the image being a derivative work: derivative works are subject to the copyright of the original work in addition to rights associated with any copyrightable modifications; it's a cumulative process, not a subtractive one. This is why we do not allow derivative works based on non-free original works at Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to sort out information on copyright...US laws sure are funny, but hard to grasp. OK, Altgens picture was published for the 1st time in the US probably before 1964. Does it make a work that could be submitted to this? Bradipus 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
After some more research, I finally found this page in the WC Report, which I struggle to understand. It contains copyright notice for some reproduced stuff (such as this one), but no copyright notice (just "credit") for others (such as the full version of the Altgens picture. I do not clearly understand why some pictures have no copyright notice, or the impact of the absence of any notice at all for the reworked version of the Altgens pic, or to what extent the absence of copyright notice implies something in relation with this or the above referred "pre-1964 exception". Bradipus 16:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the federal government of the US can own copyright on materials, if the copyright was transferred to them from a contractor or third party. For example, the U.S. Mint owns copyright on a number of coin designs used in collector pieces. Generally though this is the exception rather than the rule. Dcoetzee 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A mistake

I have imported the image called Image:Canon de la figure humaine d'après Albrecht Dürer.jpg another one is already here and is of better quality. I don't know how to destroy my importation. Could someone be kind enough to tell me? Thanks Jean-Luc W 22:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You can add {{duplicate|name of the other image}}. --rimshottalk 17:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jean-Luc W 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PD-ineligible?

Would Image:G-unit UBX.png (a record label logo) fall under Template:PD-ineligible? Spellcast 04:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Without a court decision, you can never be 100% sure, but that doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption to me. I don't think the uploader should claim to be the copyright holder, though, or claim that it's under a license which presupposes the image being copyrighted. (That would be a violation of copyright laws if the image truly is not copyrightable.) —LX (talk, contribs) 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, {{PD-textlogo}} should apply, especially for a U.S. logo. Carl Lindberg 03:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy horse memorial

Since the Crazy Horse Memorial is a private undertaking, not a government project, wouldn't images of it be considered non-free derivative works? Kelly 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be right. Probably a suitable candidate for a mass deletion request. One question to keep in mind is whether or not it's located in an Indian reservation and whether or not that has any implications on the applicability of US copyright laws. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial. Kelly 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sustainable photography

I thought about introducing a new policy called "sustainable photography" or the likes. For example, in many old places, taking photography with flash is forbidden. Images that have been uploaded using flash in places where it is known they shouldn't be should be deleted. Or would this fall under general Commons policy anyways? Also how about animal pictures "No animal or living being was hurt while taking this image" or something like that? Gryffindor 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't commons's job to enforce conservation policies. Animal rights issues are also not within our mandate nor are human rights issues.Geni 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Geni. Also, since we're not paying people for photogrphs, we're doing nothing to encourage inappropriate behaviour (like tabloids encourage paparazzi, by paying them). Anyways, I would like to hear your reasoning for adding warnings like this or this. I don't see what support that has in existing policy. I hope nothings been deleted under such a warning. --Rob 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed as well... commons should not police these photos. If you wanted to add a note to an image which politely points out the damaging effect of light and therefore why flash shouldn't be used in many museums and similar places, in order to discourage people from taking such photos in the future, that might be OK (or a template to that effect). You could also try to get wikipedia projects to use alternate non-flash photos in preference to them. In the end though, those are editorial decisions, and commons does not make those, so I would not support any effort to delete them. Carl Lindberg 03:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would you want Commons to do that? Personal beliefs? Please do not add warnings like that again. We have no such policy and never should. Rocket000 06:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
While I don't think Commons should adopt such a policy, I appreciate your concern about the ethical behaviour of Commons photographers. Perhaps we could write a guideline about it: don't use flash on fragile objects, don't attempt to photograph endangered species without knowing what you're doing, respect people's privacy, etc.
Concerning museums, I have serious doubts concerning many flash forbidding policies. There seem safe and sound for old tapestries, frescoes and so on, but you also see such warnings for stone sculptures or in places continuously lit by direct sunshine. I would be very interested by an detailed explanation (a Wikipedia article, perhaps?) of the effects of flash photography on museum exhibits. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we should at least have an ethical guideline. Gryffindor 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've thought that it would be helpful to have something like this, however more along the lines of that photographers should exercise reasonable care and prudence when taking or attempting to take photos so as not place themselves at undue risk of bodily harm, getting into legal trouble, etc. for taking photos of x. It isn't Commons' job to police these things, but we don't want people getting in trouble with the authorities for example, and their excuse is "I was trying to take a photo of x for the benefit of Wikimedia Commons." However it is still up to the individual photographer (s) if they themselves want to put themselves at risk, and Commons shouldn't be liable for their actions. That could turn up a bigger can of works re. liability now, but does it really apply to Commons photographers since we're all volunteers? BrokenSphere 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

note: Category:Galleria degli Uffizi has been protected by User:Gryffindor to keep the warning, threatening deletion. I strongly object to one admin inventing deletion policy. --Rob 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's been reverted now. See also COM:VP#Edit war and admin protection on museum dispute. --MichaelMaggs 17:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it raises liability issues as we are all volunteers. Now, if we became an accredited photographer on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation: that'd be a different story; but in this sense I do not believe we are agents of the WF and therefore the WF is not legally responsible for our actions. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The argument can always be made that the photo was taken in a personal capacity, then the photographer later decided to upload it here. Although recently I have been deliberately taking photos with the intent before I pressed the shutter button that this would get uploaded. BrokenSphere 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. What people do outside of Commons is none of our concern. Everyone has their own ethical standards and their actions will be based on those alone and not someone else's. We're not responsible for what some photographers decide to do—we're not telling them what to do. So let's not start now. Rocket000 04:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a related issue, though. By observing the restrictions, photographers generate less-than-ideal images. They may still be the best available usable image. There should be a way of tagging them to indicate that the image quality compromise was made for a good reason. LeadSongDog 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's implying everyone agrees what a "good reason" is. For example, I think sometimes it's justified to do something that some may consider wrong, i.e. experimenting on animals, if it serves a greater good, i.e. curing cancer. A similar parallel can be made with photographing. Providing the world with images of things they would never normally get to see or otherwise experience may be the motive in some situations. Maybe the person just doesn't care about certain rules and will continue to take those photos regardless of whether we use them or not. By not using them or using one of less of lesser quality/value we are only screwing ourselves to make some kind of ethical stand. There are sacrifices. And when and where we make those are entirely subjective. It's best to stay neutral. Rocket000 17:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A guideline on photographer ethics is perfectly reasonable, but there's no reason we should prohibit certain types of images, particularly because a large proportion of our images are not taken by Commons members. If museum staff take a single "official" photo of a painting using flash and then release it under a free license, we want to use it. If a Flickr member takes an unethical picture and releases it under a free license, the damage is already done and nothing we could have done would have discouraged them, as they don't even know about us. The very fact that we're constructing a diverse archive allows contributors to at least target photographs of things that haven't been already photographed, instead of flashing the same artwork thousands of times. Dcoetzee 23:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1912 Swiss postcard: public domain?

Is the bottom half of [2] public domain, or is it not known? Thank you. --NE2 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's PD if the photographer, whose name is given on the backside (upper half of the image), died long ago enough. the photographer was "F. Beeler, Brunnen". "Brunnen" is a city in the canton of Schwyz, at the north end of the road pictured, the Category:Axenstrasse. If the photographer died before 1943, the postcard is PD in Switzerland and in the U.S., and you could upload the image locally at the English Wikipedia. If he died more than 70 years ago, you may upload the image here. If you can't figure out the year the photographer died, the copyright status is unknown. HTH, Lupo 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"F. Beeler" was "Franz Beeler". Lupo 13:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And it's PD in the U.S. anyway as it was published before 1923. So, figure out when Franz Beeler died, and if that was more than 70 years ago, it's fine. Lupo 13:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
How would I figure out when he died? --NE2 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the hard part. Parish register of Brunnen, canton of Schwyz, Switzerland? Lupo 06:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Film trailers

Per this license template Template:PD-US-not renewed- is it OK to assume that all trailers published in the U.S. with a copyright notice up until December 31, 1963 are in the public domain?

Can someone also confirm whether or not simply the name of the movie studio on the trailer qualifies as a copyright notice? Thanks Gustav VH 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Country of origin with derivative works

Policy requires: "Uploads of non-U.S. works are allowed only if the work is covered by a free license valid in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work".

I want to ask about an exotic case. Work A is published and subject to copyright in the EU. As a matter of law, Work A in PD-ineligible in the US. An author takes Work A and creates a derivative Work B published in the US. That author releases Work B under a free license (with the intent that this apply globally). However, in the EU, this would be a problem since the underlying Work A was still subject to copyright.

Nominally the country of origin for Work B is the US, so the letter of the policy would be satisfied, though arguably the spirit of the policy is not.

Should Work B be allowed on Commons or not? Should we worry about the country of origin of all component parts of a work, in addition to the final composition? Dragons flight 04:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] findagrave.com

Based on this, would it be suitable for me to license an image from http://www.findagrave.com under a free license? J.delanoygabsadds 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so. The only thing I can read out of this is that findagrave doesn't claim any copyright on the images that were uploaded. And that they are not responsible for any copyright issues concerning the uploads. But that doesn't change the rights of the uploaders of the pics (and that some of them upload pics where they don't have the rights). -- Cecil 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Publishers identification of illustrations as "copyright free"

I have a copy of this Dover Publications book. The linked publisher's site mentions that it has "400 royalty-free illustrations". The book itself (on its back cover) says: "Accompanied by a scrupulously researched and well-documented text, these copyright-free illustrations not only offer general readers an intriguing and authentic insight into a past age...[etc]". Many booksellers show the complete blurb printed on the back cover of the book including [3] and [4]

The illustrations are sketches of medieval art and artifacts, made by Eduard Wagner, who died in 1984. The book was first published in Czechoslvakia in 1956, then the English language edition published in London, 1958. The US Dover edition, from which I wish to make copies, was published in 2000.

Presuming I can take the publishers' word about the copyright status of the illustrations, what tag will I use? I presume it is one of the public domain ones? (But which?) Many thanks. Gwinva 23:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright in Hungary

According to Hungarian copyright law (translation available from unesco), only "artistic" photgraphs are covered by copyright. Anyone know what definition of "artistic" they are using? Does this mean historic photographs taken for documentary rather than artistic purposes are Public Domain? - Themightyquill 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we know... some countries have the meaning as snapshots vs. photographs which are artistically set up, lit, etc.; other countries have the line as photocopies vs. something just slightly more involved. See User:Lupo/Simple Photographs for some thoughts on the matter. If you know of any specific examples or further information on what Hungary considers "artistic" vs. "non-artistic", it would be appreciated. Carl Lindberg 04:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of paintings from a UK location

According to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, the {{PD-Art}} tag should not be used for photographs of paintings taken in a country (such as the UK) where faithful photographic reproductions of 2D works of art are generally considered to be protected by copyright. Most likely the majority of the photos of UK paintings on Commons were taken in the UK in which case the photos are not automatically in the public domain unless it could be shown that the photos were taken outside of the UK. Many of the uploaded photos of UK-based paintings either use either PD-Art or PD-Old. Should these photos be kept on Commons or should they be deleted until a license is obtained from the copyright holder? --84.226.73.67 13:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When you put an image on a server that can be viewed from the US copyright wise you are effectively publishing in the US. Or at least that is the line of attack I've tended to follow.Geni 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So which template would you use to upload a photograph of a UK-based painting? If one takes a look at Template:PD-Art, there is the sentence, This photograph was taken in the U.S. or in another country where a similar rule applies (for a list of allowable countries, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules). Following the link one scrolls down to the rules for the UK. It seems copyright is granted to the photographs of UK-based paintings. So in principle, we would need to get a license for every copyrighted photograph of a UK-based painting. --84.226.73.67 14:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the UK grants a copyright on the photograph, an image of an old work of art would need to establish that the artwork was out of copyright (e.g. {{PD-old}}) and that the photographer releases their potential copyright by making a free license declaration or similar. If the photograph was taken by a Wikimedian, it is usually pretty easy to obtain such a release. If the image was copied from a museum website or similar third party source then it may need to be deleted. Dragons flight 14:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's take concrete examples old works of art then. There are a large number of photographs of paintings of English royalty such as [5], [6], and [7]. Most do not say where the photographs were taken. But I would guess that it would be easy to find the museum where the original painting is kept (and is likely the place where the photograph was taken). So if the paintings are in the UK would these images be candidates for deletion because we do not have a license from the unknown photographer/copyright holder? If so, then there are a lot of images of UK paintings that would be candidates! I find this to be a bit worrisome. Or do we just leave them in Commons until the copyright holder demands that it be taken down? --84.226.73.67 15:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
These are indeed problematic, as the were probably taken in the UK by someone other than the uploader and we have no licence from the photographer. {{PD-art}} cannot be used in the UK. If it can be shown that the paintings are held in a non-UK museum where {{PD-art}} is allowed, the relevant information should be added. Absent that, there's a high probability that they are copyvios of the work of a UK photographer and should be deleted. I have nominated them. --MichaelMaggs 06:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It was not my intention to start a campaign of the wholesale deletion of photos of UK-based paintings. There are a significant number of such photos and simply removing them would seriously damage all the encyclopedias. The photos have been sitting in Commons for at least two years. Would it not be better to start a campaign to either obtain alternate photos or to obtain licenses for the current photos? I think a gradual replacement programme would be less disruptive. --89.217.8.139 10:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question (vague, much?)

Regarding Image:Van Wouw met twee hoekfigure.png. A picture taken in Rome between 1896 and 1899 by an unknown person. It was only ever published in South Africa, but at the time of publishing it was already in the Public Domain, as far as South African copyright law is concerned. I have no idea how te determine the international copyright status of the picture, or which licensing tag(s) to add. Any advice would be appreciated. Anrie 08:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos from the French Government

We have a lot of photos from various French government agencies ([8], [9], [10], [11] etc.) May I nuke them on sight per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Borloo- Fillon - Lagarde Une 500.jpg, or do I need to open deletion requests? --Kjetil_r 00:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominate. It's a case-by-case thing - just like an individual, the French government may elect to make certain images available under more liberal terms (although it appears that they're rarely inclined to do so). There's certainly nothing wrong with mass-nominating images from a single source, covered by a single license statement - this would help expedite things. Dcoetzee 02:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing"
Personal tools