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 19. 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, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

(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 If you wish to dispute an archived page, you should begin a new discussion on this page and provide a link to the archive in question.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] Images of structures that are not buildings per se, FOP in the US

Please consider a file such as File:Sorcerer Hat.jpg. Are photographs of this structure/sculpture/building/thing allowable under the provisions of U.S. copyright law? It is located in a public area in Florida. It is not really a building per se, but it shelters a retail location. Is it a sculpture or a structure? Or something else entirely? Powers (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Structures like bridges etc. are not eligible for copyright protection at all, I'm pretty sure. This one blurs all the lines, which is always fun. But, since its primary purpose is to provide shelter, I'd probably go with a building. I think the photograph is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, its primary purpose is to serve as a focal point for the theme park, something to draw the eye and lead guests inward. In that respect, it resembles a sculpture more than anything else. Powers (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I tagged it with FoP-US - the existing justification was rather dubious (FoP works are still derivative works, etc.) Dcoetzee (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Not of buildings -- the law explicitly states that an architectural copyright's protection does not extend to photographs of the work, so they are not (in a copyright sense) derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the consensus is that images of this feature are allowed, then, because it is a structure and not a sculpture? Powers (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes? No? Powers (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question about licensing

I'm trying to upload a logo for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Its website has a page where it lets anyone download its logos, and I'm wondering if this allows me to use it here? Ltwin (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, just offering an image for download is not enough. The website would have to state that the images are available under a free license. Such statement could also be forwarded per e-mail to COM:OTRS. --rimshottalk 06:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Simultaneous first publishing, which is the country of origin?

In 1919, a book and its images were simultaneously published in New York, Toronto, Melbourne, and London. The publisher's main office is in London. The authors of the text and the images are British or Europeans. Which is the country of origin? Jappalang (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From Article 5:
(4) The country of origin shall be considered to be:
(a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection;
(b) in the case of works published simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union, the latter country;
[...]
The U.S. was not a member at the time, but now is. Not sure if "country of origin" can change if a country later joins Berne. "Simultaneously" means published with 30 days, not necessarily just the same year. Apparently that definition has changed too: in the 1928 Berne revision, it meant within a day or two; the 30-day period did not appear until the 1948 revision.[1] The 1908 version apparently didn't define "simultaneously" at all, but it still had the basic provisions listed above. For unpublished works, typically the nationality of the author is used, and there are special cases for architectural works and erected sculptural/artistic works (using the country where the works exist). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps since the US was not a full party to the Convnetion until 1988, it would not be considered as part of the Union for a "simultaneous" publishing before 1988 (meaning we would ignore it for first publishing)? The issue of my query is for the illustrations in the 9 volumes of John Cassell's History of England (printed 1902–1909), see Cassell's History of England. They are simultaneously published for US, Canada, Australia, and UK; although some of the illustrations (namely the line drawings) are reused from older publications, much (namely the ones that are more detailed and "modern", e.g. File:Battle of Bannockburn - Bruce addresses troops.jpg—found out who is the artist—) are fairly new for that time (from c. 1880 and on) and hence unlikely to be PD in UK or Europe. Unfortunately the woodcut engravers are pretty much unidentifiable from their initials. If the US is accepted as the country of origin, then I can upload other of its illustrations to here... If not, they (including some of those currently here) have to go on Wikipedia until the acceptable time for them to be PD in UK has expired. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to put some context to the question; specifically, under which nation's law? Even though we have the Berne Convention definition of "country of origin" and "simultaneous," in most countries, the BC is not self-executing; that is, the Convention is treated as an agreement among countries, akin to a contract; but the actual applicable laws are those of the individual nations who implement the BC by having laws consistent with it.
In the United States, the actual step of determining a "country of origin" is for the most part moot (other than for restored copyrights). Instead, the U.S. looks to, for example (in § 104(b)(2)), whether the work was first published in a country that is a treaty party. In the case of a simultaneous publication, as I read the statute, it would be enough than any of the countries in which it was simultaneously published was such a country. The statute does not require determining a country of origin.
The above is referring to the current version of § 104, from the 1994 URAA; but the one added by the Berne Convention Implementation Act was similar in this regard. In terms of simultaneous publication, it looked only to whether the work was "simultaneously first published in a nation adhering to the Berne Convention."
Now, for restored copyrights, the U.S. has a concept of "source country," which is analogous to the country of origin. For simultaneously published works it is the country that "has the most significant contacts with the work" (§ 104A(h)(8)(C)(ii)). But that definition is used only for determining whether a copyright is restored, based a couple issues. First, whether the source country is eligible to participate in the restoration scheme (based on its adherence to an appropriate copyright treaty); and second, whether the work is still covered by copyright in the source country.
Does that clear things up, or make it muddier? TJRC (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you have cleared things up. My concern was that Commons asks for "free" works in both country of origin and the US. The books concerned (and their art within) were published simulteously as stated above. Since the works are by British and Europeans, I was concerned if we had to take the URAA into consideration as well as the possibility of artists who have not died more than 70 years ago. If we take US as the country of origin, then every content in those books would be okay (pre-1923 in US). Thanks to your explanations, the "country of origin" is the one that "has the most significant contacts with the work", so UK (Cassell's and most of the artists' nation) is the home country in question. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As TJRC notes, most of the technical U.S. definitions only apply to URAA restorations, which are irrelevant here because it is PD in the US either way. As a question of Commons policy... not sure we have it explicitly defined, but we generally go with Berne's definition I think. Still, the "most significant contacts" may be a good way to go here anyways. I see some versions of Cassell's history go back to the 1850s and 1860s, so it is possible many illustrations were previously published there. Anonymous-EU and PD-UK-unknown may come into play, but it sounds a bit muddy. As a side note... is it true that the Berne Convention is not self-executing in most countries? I know it's not in the U.S. and probably not most common-law countries, but I thought it was in many others. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that in most countries it's not self-executing. I do know that in some of the Scandinavian countries, it is self-executing, although I can't remember which ones or where I read that some 10 or so years ago. <opinion> Non-self-executing seems to me to be the better interpretation in any event, since the whole basis of Berne (national treatment) is to look to the local laws for substantive law. </opinion> TJRC (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright on PD-old

I need a picture for the article and found a good one on flickr - it is a photo of a Joseph Cornide drawing published in 1792. I want to upload it but the copyright mark on the photo troubles me. I assume it is a PD-old - it is OK to upload? Thanks. --Monfornot (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that a claim of copyright on such an image would have any validity. Who's going to enforce it — someone who has been dead for 250+ years? I'm sure that this is okay. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I meanwhile found an original. =) --Monfornot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You can tag such photos with {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for details. Pruneautalk 08:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Precise licensing

File:Organ school house.jpg, a photograph from the USA from 1900 plus its caption, is licensed as {{PD-self}}, although that's plainly wrong, since the oldest currently living person was only six years old at the time. As a faithful reproduction of the photo, I'm sure that this counts as PD-old if the photo does. Is there any way that this photo could still be copyrighted, such as if it were published by the copyright holder decades after it was taken? I've never been clear on the privately-taken-and-not-published-for-a-long-time criteria. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also consider File:Organ constable office 250.jpg, apparently taken in 1898. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The determining factors are whether and when it was first published.
If it was first published prior to 1923, it would be PD by now.
If it was published (with copyright notice) between 1923-1963, it got a 28-year copyright term, renewable for a second 67-year term. In other words, it would be copyrighted today only if it were renewed.
If it was published (w.c.n.) 1964-1977, it would have effectively gotten a 95 year term, even if not formally renewed.
If it was published (w.c.n) 1978-2002 (actually, copyright notice would not matter as of March 1989), it would have a copyright that lasted for the later of the standard life+70 term or through 2047. 2047 is the smart bet here.
If it was never published, or never published until 2003, it would have a copyright that lasted for life+70. Depending on the photographer's date of death, it could still be under copyright. For example, if the photographer was 20 when he took a photo in 1900, and died at age 70 in 1950, and the work was first published by his grandchild in 2003, the work would have a copyright through 2020. TJRC (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, all true. The old U.S. laws started the clock ticking only when it was published (or registered for copyright). However sometimes people think that by scanning a PD photo and uploading the scan, they are the author of the scan and license it accordingly. That appears to be the case here. The copyright of the scan is the same as the copyright of the original. PD-US would be the better license here though, not PD-Old. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed explanation of noncommercial

We really need a section / page explaining why we want our content non-non-commercial. File:BD-propagande-2 (en).jpg is great but I feel a bit silly when I am sending an email to an academic and all I have to back my argument up is a cartoon :) Please note that as far as I know nowhere in the project a justification of non-commercial is present... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would also be great to have stronger arguments for why Wikipedia-only licenses are not allowed, why no-derivative licenses are not okay, and so on. The cartoon doesn't do a great job of explaining anyway. I could write some of this. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have created Commons:Licensing/Justifications for this purpose. Feel free to edit and let me know what you think. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
That looks pretty good actually. But I would replace all mentions of "Mediawiki" (which is the name of the software) with "Wikimedia" (the name of the Foundation). Many sites use mediawiki software which are not controlled by the Foundation ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, switched them in my head :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Mainly it is philosophical -- it is part of the "free software" movement as well, which is the ancestor of a lot of these licenses. From a more practical standpoint, there are many uses which would be considered "commercial" which already take place with the content (such as fundraising by non-profit organizations). There is some (old) discussion at Commons talk:Licensing/Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed, linked higher above on this page, and some (really really old, and archived) discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Noncommercial-use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Um, we don't want our content non-commercial. In fact, we require it to be able to be used commercially, don't we? Powers (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Everybody seems to have assumed that Piotrus meant to write "non-non-commercial" :-) Lupo 14:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, corrected :) What I want is a page/section to which I can point out people when I am telling them why their CC-NC license is not good for Wikipedia/Commons. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Most pre-1978 magazine advertisements are likely in the public domain.

Because a typical advertisement runs in several magazines, they are not included in the magazine copyright. Each ad needs its own copyright notice. See this 1974 ad for KOOL cigarettes, copyright Brown & Williamson Tobacco The tobacco companies often placed copyright notices in their ads.

This is from the Copyright Notice Circular 3. Page 3, Contributions to Collective Works. (In copyright speak a magazine or journal is known as a "collective work".)

A single copyright notice applicable to the collective work as a whole serves to indicate protection for all the contributions in the collective work, except for advertisements, regardless of the ownership of copyright in the individual contributions and whether they have been published previously.

A notice for the collective work will not serve as the notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work. These advertisements should each bear a separate notice in the name of the copyright owner of the advertisement.

Here is the law. U.S. Code title 17 chapter 4

Works published before 1978 required a valid copyright notice or the material was in the public domain. Advertisements relying on the copyright notice of the magazine are treated as a notice with the wrong name.The 1909 copyright law considered this a defective copyright.

As a practical mater, an advertisement with a famous copyrighted photograph might result in a challenge. This would be unlikely for a typical advertisement with an in-house photograph of the product with a utilitarian description and price. See this circular saw ad.

Here is a 1985 federal court case that affirms that advertisements require an explicit copyright notice. 759 F2d 493 Canfield v. Ponchatoula Times Here are a few other cases.

Here is an interesting page, the calculator advertisement half is public domain but the magazine subscription advertisement half has a valid copyright because it is by the magazine publisher. Popular Mechanics ad.

A search of the Internet Archive for Public Domain Rule 5 advertisement shows that they post advertisements that do not have an explicit copyright notice. [2]

Public domain advertisements should be a valuable source of illustrations. Here is an example: File:MITS Calculator 1200 Series 1973.jpg. This shows the calculators that MITS produced before making the Altair 8800 computer. Microsoft was started when Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote software for this computer.

-- Swtpc6800 (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article about Duke University's efforts in obtaining copyright permission for "7,000 advertisements printed primarily in U.S. newspapers and magazines between 1911 and 1955". With student labor they tracked down the owners for the ads. In the article's conclusion, they state this may not have been necessary.

"An alternative to the process we followed in searching out the companies would have been to check with the Copyright Office to see if any of the ads had been registered when first created. The copyright law of 1909, under which the ads in the project originally fell, required that a notice of copyright be affixed to each copy (or forfeit copyright), and that the item be registered with the Register of Copyrights (noncompliance possibly causing a fine or the voiding of copyright). (8) Every magazine and newspaper in which the ads were printed most likely carried a copyright notice; this notice, however, fails to cover the advertisements not originating from the magazine or newspaper itself."
Lynn Pritcher (February 2000), "Seeking Copyright Permissions for a Digital Age", D-Lib Magazine [3]

-- Swtpc6800 (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments?

All this would apply of course only to U.S. advertisements in U.S. magazines. Advertisements from foreign companies may have gotten their copyright restored by the URAA, and ads in non-U.S. magazines published in countries other than the U.S. might be copyrighted under the laws of that other country. Lupo 13:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems right though pre-1978 stuff is a bit fuzzier; 17 U.S.C. 404(a) was only explicitly made part of the 1976 Act (effective 1978) and notices were required until March 1, 1989, so this is definitely the case in that period (though it may be possible for an advertiser to have reclaimed copyright by registering it with the Copyright Office within 5 years) . Pre-1978 cases you linked to do indicate that ads are not covered under the general copyright of a newspaper (or were text-only and PD-ineligible) but don't explicitly mention the notice part, though that would seem to logically follow. And yes, this is purely a U.S. thing, for U.S. ads first published in the U.S. {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}} would apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is permission necessary here?

The file "Casta Diva.ogg"

File:Casta Diva.ogg

seems to be ripped from commercial disk. While it has a licensing informaton, can it be vaild without an OTRS ticket? 84.111.36.172 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Any previously published work requires either an OTRS ticket, or an easily accessible license statement. So unless the CD shipped with a license statement, or one is on the artist's website, yes, such permission would be required. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is their explanation valid?

University of South Florida's Educational Technological Clearinghouse (ETC) has been taking many US public domain illustrations and restoring them. They, however, release the restored products as non-commercial only.[4] Is their statment—"However, by the time we have scanned, cropped, cut out backgrounds, fixed broken lines, simplified, sharpened, and otherwise cleaned up the original drawing, the result is a new artwork derived from the earlier drawing."—correct? A sample of their works here. Jappalang (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I seriously doubt it. No way to tell for sure without seeing the originals, but I don't see how any of the work they are claiming would count as creativity -- they are still copies of the original, albeit cleaned up with some skill. That said, I also personally respect their wishes and don't take anything from their site, and most especially think a bulk upload would be a bad idea. But I don't think I'd delete anything already uploaded either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I looked at their physics collection. Those do not look like "new artworks". The good thing is that they give sources, and quote good descriptions from the sources. But that is not something that would attract copyright, as I understand it. Maybe they could claim some kind of catalogue protection? That would exclude a bulk upload. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Most of these would not in the United States qualify as original works - their minimal modifications don't meet the threshold for creative original work, and so fall under {{Modifications-ineligible}}. However, I would still treat them on a case-by-case basis - some of them may have received extensive restoration work, and it's really hard to tell without having the original handy for comparison. There is no "catalog" or "database right" protection in the United States. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-North Korea

This template is without any reference. Discussion was started at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_7#Very_very_suspicious, but it only says: "[...] ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins". We have this exemptions in other countries too - and it is obviously not related to photographs (photographs are not current news). Also the template was mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by user Dprk48. Originally the template was created by NKorean General (talk • contribs) and was used shortly after creation in File:Pyongsong.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

usage of PD-North Korea 
Any answer would be appreciated, restored this from the Archive. What to do with a license template that is not based on any information source or law? --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
back from the archive :( --Martin H. (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The quote comes from north korean law. Of course since it is rather questionable to what extent the rule of law functions within north korea it is rather hard to tell what it means.Geni (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A detailed summary appears to be in this blog posting. There is an Article 12 which says copyright does not protect "documents for state management, current news or information data" unless "commercial purpose is pursued". Which is an odd way of stating it. If someone who knows Korean (i.e. not me) wants to see the actual law, there is a link to a .hwp file in this blog post. The link is now dead, but archive.org has a copy of the original download page, and you can reconstruct a link to www.copycle.or.kr which still works (this is an HWP file, I believe a particular Korean word processor). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I would take "copyright does not protect 'documents for state management, current news or information data' unless 'commercial purpose is pursued'" as a non-commercial use clause, which is not public domain. It would appear North Korean works are copyrighted or restricted in their use. The template is not accurate.  Delete? Jappalang (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per restrictive licensing. Current template is wrong. feydey (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Renewal

Fyi http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/De_Kafka_Hungerkünstler_(1924) --Historiograf (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dmitri1.jpg

(I was directed here from the "Wikipedia: Media copyright questions" page by a user of name ww2censor. I am reposting what I posted there. )

The reasoning that this image is in the public domain does not seem to be correct. There is no evidence that this photo is a work of the United States Federal Government as claimed. (Whenever would have they made this photo anyway? The page linked to by the uploader guesses the image at 1942, but Shostakovich would have been hunkered down in Russia then, and had not travelled to the USA yet. I highly doubt the "Office of War Information" hired a photographer to take a portrait of Shostakovich in Russia in the midst of WWII.) Regardless, the page is clearly stating that the photo is merely a holding in the Office of War Information Collection of the Library of Congress. If you follow the link on that page saying "How to obtain copies of this item" (I can't link it because Wikipedia parses it wrong, which may be a bug someone may want to look into), you will see that it says first and foremost: "The Library of Congress generally does not own rights to material in its collections and, therefore, cannot grant or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute the material." This image is probably a copyright violation, what dost thou in charge think?--Atethnekos (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress page does not let you click to get the higher-resolution version, which is one of their indications that it may still be copyrighted, or at least not evaluated. Presumably obtained by the U.S. government at some point. On the other hand, it is not just a print, it is a "copy negative". Not sure if that means it is the original, or a negative created from a print or something. It is possible the negative (and therefore possibly the copyright) was purchased (or otherwise obtained) by the U.S. Government, which then placed it in the public domain, but outside of that it is almost certainly still copyrighted. And there isn't much evidence of that (as the Library of Congress does not declare this to be PD). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed the same photo as the one at the Library of Congress, but in our version, somebody has retouched away the curtain in the background. It says "photographic print" on the image description page at the LoC. The photo is part of LOT 11640 (D), containing "Photographs collected by Office of War Information from various sources.", and the LoC states on the whole lot "No known restrictions on publication." The full 1087×1536px TIFF file of the LoC image doesn't reveal anything more (no photographer's mark or so, no EXIF data either). The TIFF file was created 1999-03-30 at 02:30:17.
BTW, the TIFF was scanned at 1200dpi, giving a print size of 23×32.5 mm. Assuming that this is the size of the original, I'd say it's a passport photo, which is consistent with the background curtain and the pose (looking slightly left, exposing one ear: such a pose was for a long time prescribed for passport photos in Europe—nowadays, they tell you to look straight on and not to smile, and avoid reflections from glasses). As a passport photo, it might even be {{PD-ineligible}}, even if taken by real photographer, since there's very little freedom of expression for passport photos. Lupo 08:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In any case, it is certainly not a work of the U.S. government. If the photographer is truly unknown (and I have found no indication of a photographer's name anywhere), the image might be PD in the U.S. because it was PD in Russia on 1996-01-01 (term was 50 years since publication for anonymous or pseudonymous works under the 1993 copyright law), and its U.S. copyright was not restored. Under current Russian law it might or might not be copyrighted: if truly published before 1943 and anonymous, it'd be PD in Russia, too (copyright expired before 1993, and thus the image did not benefit from the restorative term extension to 70 years from the new 2006 law), but if it was published 1943 or later, it'd be copyrighted. Assuming that the dating at the LoC (they state "[1942?]") is an upper bound, I think we may presume that this image indeed is PD in Russia and in the U.S. In other Berne countries, it'd be PD if it was PD in Russia when Russia joined (i.e., in 1995), which, for an anonymous work, would mean published before 1945. So it seems this should be fine. (Unless the photographer is actually known.) Lupo 07:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, somehow I missed the "photographic print" and only saw the "copy negative" at the bottom. I also forgot about the 1993 limit to the retroactivity of the Russian law. Thanks for the reminder ;-) But yes, definitely not a USGov work, but may well be PD anyways given the above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kopimi license

I found this old deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Kopimi and noticed that the Kopimi website has gone off-line. I discovered that it has moved to the .com domain, now it is here: http://www.kopimi.com/kopimi/ I closed the DR with a "Keep", as this license template is used by many files. Please comment here if this is a valid free license. Sv1xv (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario Power Generation

...is wholly owned by the government of Ontario, Canada. I want to use a couple of their hydroelectric power plant photos for [5] and [6] from their website [7].

At [8], they say this:

You may use and reproduce any information in this Site solely for educational or non-commercial purposes, so long as you do not change any such information and so long as you include with all such information the following, “Copyright © 2009 Ontario Power Generation Inc., all rights reserved. This information is subject to the general terms of use set out in Ontario Power Generation Inc.’s web site (www.opg.com).”

So, what do you think? Can I use the pics?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you may not upload them here at the Commons. The images are copyrighted, all rights reserved. Maybe you can use some under a "fair use" claim, uploading them locally at the English Wikipedia. Lupo 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
To be a bit more specific, the problems are the "educational or non-commercial" and "do not change" parts in the license. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses and freedomdefined:Definition for why licenses forbidding commercial use or modification are not considered free enough for Commons. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fiumanianghiari.png

Hello. Some days ago I uploaded this image, which received a missing essential source information warning. The image is my own work, as I wrote in the file description, so which kind of information is needed to make the file right and the warning removed? Thank you. --Antenor81 (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It may have been an inappropriate tag to add, but since the image is pretty obviously a grab from a video (or a photograph of a video being played on TV), then the person believed that the source video should also have been mentioned. The video has a separate copyright, and if it was not taken by you, then you would have no right to upload the image. I see that you posted videos of the performance to youtube (here and at least one other). If the videos were taken by you, I would mention that the image is a grab from a self-taken video and remove the tag. If the video is from some other source, or something you recorded from TV, then you would not own copyright to the image and thus could not license it, and it should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I added the missing information as you suggested. In fact it is a grab from a self-taken video.--Antenor81 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing"
Personal tools