Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 17

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Netherlands article 15b

I reinserted the Netherlands section on article 15b, which says that published government works where copyright is not expressly reserved are not protected by copyright. I'm not entirely sure why it was removed... I didn't see any discussion on it. However the same is repeated at en:Dutch copyright law and is also the basis for the {{PD-NL-Gov}} tag; if the supposition is invalid there are wider implications so I thought I would restore the section but then discuss it here. The inference seems to be directly supported by references I found when searching... This article specifically mentions it, and also some of its difficulties, and this word document which is apparently from the Dutch government also seems to validate it (though it restricts the application to works where the copyright would be owned by the government, not third-party works which happen to be published or broadcast by the government). Does anyone have any further info? The section seems OK, but I have little idea about actual practice in the Netherlands... Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that there appears to be no words like "photography" in the act, though "visual and audiovisual recordings" are mentioned in your second source. If there's an implication that this only applies to informative works, not artistic works, we could be setting ourselves up for trouble. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The nl:s:Auteurswet 1912 - Hoofdstuk I#Artikel 15b says "werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst", litterary, scientific or artistic works. There is no problem with photography. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Stargate glyphs and diagrams

While going through Commons:MIME type statistics/Unusual types, I came across File:Milky way stargate with detailed glyphs.svg (which seems to have some markup problems that prevent MediaWiki from rendering it) and, from there, Category:Stargates and Category:Stargate glyphs. These images depict a fictional device from the TV show Stargate and various symbols used on it. While at least some of the individual glyphs seems likely to be {{PD-ineligible}}, I have my doubts about putting them together, in the exact same arrangement as used in the series, together with a diagram of the complete device, as in e.g. File:Milky way stargate detailed glyphs-partially colored.png and other images in Category:Stargates. Of course, many of these images could easily qualify as fair use in articles dealing with aspects of the TV series, but that alone does not make them suitable for Commons. Opinions? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I've learned, files like File:Milky way stargate detailed glyphs-partially colored.png is not okay for here. One dot is pd-ineligble, but combined together, you can end up with something copyrightable. Then again, IANAL. Anrie (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No choice for adding picture from someone else

File:Zirkel peng 002.jpg is a picture I received from the author, specifically to upload it to Wikipedia. When I uploaded it, I noticed that there is no choice in the dropdown for that situation. I therefore added "unknown" for the license. Please correct this as appropriate.

I don't regularly monitor the commons; if there is any problem, please notify my on my English talk page. Thank you! SebastianHelm (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: The author already uploaded a similar picture earlier, File:Zirkel.jpg, under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2. SebastianHelm (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:OTRS. The author can send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. In this email he/she must state three things very clearly: 1) That he/she is the author. 2) That this is concerning File:Zirkel peng 002.jpg (he can give the filename or URL) and 3) which license he would like to release his work under. To make it foolproof he can simply use the template provided at Commons:Email_templates.
If you are going to upload more images by this author, ask him to add in the email that you will be doing so and that you have his permission to do so under the license he chose. Hope this makes it clear. Anrie (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that the author does indeed have an account: User:Peng and they are active. Just ask him/her to add the license of their choice to the image and Bob's your uncle. Anrie (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

This makes me want to ask what is the term of copyright for materials which are not audiovisual (i.e. having both a sound or visual component) and not photographic. Apparently there is no general PD-Brazil tag. — CharlotteWebb 20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

From the law linked to on that tag... The author's economic rights shall be protected for a period of 70 years as from the first of January of the year following his death, subject to observance of the order of succession under civil law. So, 70 p.m.a., which is a pretty typical term. {{PD-Old}} is the tag usually used for that, so often there are not specific tags for every country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Individual image review for transfer

Hello. Can this diagram be transferred to Commons? The original can be found here (Faltblatt 1 & 2.pdf - takes 60s, sorry). What are the pros and cons? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sitting here, and like to share my point of view, but nothing ever happens, I wonder. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Is that claiming PD-ineligible? I'm not sure that would be OK here then... seems like the original would be eligible in the U.S. at least, and likely other countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
"Diese Datei erreicht nicht die für einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz nötige Schöpfungshöhe" means "this file is below the bar of the threshold of originality". And "Diese Datei ist möglicherweise nicht mit den Richtlinien von Wikimedia Commons kompatibel" means "this file possibly is not compatible with the guidelines of Wikimedia Commons". What now? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is most likely copyrightable (and thus still copyrighted) in the U.S., so I don't think it should be uploaded here. The information could be used to make a separate diagram, but the exact (or substantially similar) presentation cannot be copied (in particular the drawing of the river, etc.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The top view with the river could presumably be redrawn based on free maps or aerial/satellite photography. As for the layout in general, perhaps someone more familiar with the topic could tell us whether and to what extent the layout and symbols used in this diagram are standard conventions for documenting the dimensions of a bridge (in which case we should follow them rather than trying to come up with our own). Ps. I don't seem to be able to download the PDF linked to above; it says it has already been downloaded too many times.Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The diagram again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Pcbetarank.jpg

In this image the copyright tags are wrongly used because this is a screenshot of a copyrighted website.--Wcam (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

Does the attribution at the top of this page indicate that the copyright is not public domain as other USGS works would be? Stepshep (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the image was taken by a civil servant on duty. If Dr. John Chardine was working for USGS then, it shouldn't be a problem.--Yamavu (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Ceramika5.jpg

I do not exactly how it is with the copyright but I think that this photo and others as shown on http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugeniusz_Molski?uselang=en#Galeria_prac_Eugeniusza_Molskiego are not allowed because of copyright. The artist is still alive. Am I right? Thanks, Wouter (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the photos in the given gallery can be used on commons. The regulations on Freedom of Panorama in Poland doesn't apply to paintings and small objects exhibited in a museum. I fear these images have to be removed.--Yamavu (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible unfree image on commons

I have found a identical copy of this image File:Ribosomer i arbete.png on en.wikipedia [1] the wikipedia copy has been marked as Possibly unfree image this file must be reviewed an if necessarily deleted because commons is not a place for unfree images.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It apparently came from nupedia.com -- that was all GFDL, so this looks fine. Is there any reason to doubt the source link? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I cant verify the source, i get error messages every time i try to visit nupedia.How about you, can you verify that the file actually exists on nupedia?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
w:Nupedia died around 2003; it was a forerunner of Wikipedia. Source links do go dead as websites evolve; by itself that is no reason for suspicion. The en-wiki file was uploaded in 2003 so that fits. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:PD-HK-PR

I came across {{PD-HK-PR}}. It seems to be used on images ripped from the web. The actual text is at [2], i doubt all the images are covered by this. Multichill (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fernando Botero

I hate to do this, but I ask because I take paints to photograph statutes and sculpture at a wide angle so that I don't run afoul of copyright issues. I started to do this because many of my artwork photos were deleted. Yet many of the files in this category are close-ups of sculpture. Am I incorrect in thinking these are copyvios, or has something changed? --David Shankbone (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends on location. Where you are, you have to deal with COM:FOP#United States, but most of these seem to have been made in other countries, with for example COM:FOP#Israel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Book covers

Is it just me, or should covers like this Wordsworth edition of Gulliver's Travels be public domain? The image used is PD-old (created c. 1900, (French) author died in 1931) and the rest is simple text (PD-ineligible). Anrie (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be public domain. But I think it will be out of scope. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Even in an article on Gulliver's Travels? Anrie (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems perfectly inside Commons' scope to me. Articles about books or authors are frequent on wikipedia, to name just one possible usage. --Tryphon (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a possible but unlikely usage: unless it will be used, I don't see a reason to upload it. Shouldn't wikipedias and wikisources (and so on) show the covers of notable editions, rather than give free publicity to (perfectly respectable but uninteresting) publishers of dime store editions? --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but is there a free one available? Besides, it's always a good thing to have a choice; who are we to say that wikipedia editors should not use this image? As long as it's free and can be used for educational purposes, we should not impose our views on the other projects. --Tryphon (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that's the wrong way to approach things. Someone wants to upload it, and it's not clearly out of scope, so the Commons should accept it if the license is okay. Anyway, dime store editions tend to have the advantage of easy recognizability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that taking a PD-old work, cropping it and layering it with text and color, putting it a whole new context is not itself copyrightable. It strikes me as being above the de minimus standard for copyright, which is pretty low. I think a judge might argue that the classic case is about a telephone book, where what is wanted is the phone numbers independent of source. Here we are more than capable of making our own cover for Gulliver's Travels, but what is wanted is their cover, which indicates that it does have protectable copyright. From another perspective, unprotectable things would all be pretty much the same no matter what the source; if two people's design for a cover would be strikingly different, as is likely, then there's probably something protectable by copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
In the U.S., no, I don't think that would qualify as a copyrightable print. Short phrases and titles are not copyrightable, and neither is the arrangement of type on the page. You generally need some other graphic element to qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Alabbas.JPG

This image seems to be cropped from this image at http://www.yamahde.com and since I do not read Arabic, I don't know if there is a copyright exemption on that site. --Palnatoke (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The uploader has also copied a number of images from http://ashura.dk, whose copyright notice says "Denne hjemmeside er en del af ungemuslimer gruppen Det er tilladt at kopiere, printe eller trykke al indhold, så længe det hjælper med udbredelsen af islam. Det er desuden også tilladt at benytte nogle af artiklerne eller bøgerne på andre hjemmesider, efter at have nævnt kilden.", which roughly means "This site is part of the young Muslim group. You are allowed to copy, print or press any content as long as it helps the spread of Islam. It is also allowed to use some of the articles or books on other sites, after having mentioned the source." This seems non-free (as in "May I use it to stop Islam?" "No.") --Palnatoke (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Scanned German Banknotes (ca. 1920)

I have uploaded scanned Banknotes (or, in fact "Notgeld", i.e. emergency money) printed during the economic crisis after WWI in Germany. I used {{PD-GermanGov}} as a license, following an example that I found under Category:Notgeld. (Here is an example: File:Notgeld-Dömitz-10-front.jpg.) But I am unsure if this license is correct, because this license seems to be applicable only for law texts and the like (that's what the description of the license says, even though the term "Amtliches Werk" would probably also cover official money.

Other files use {{PD-self}}, or {{PD-old}}, but I think they aren't applicable either, because the banknote wasn't created by the uploader, and there is no way of knowing whether the unknown artist who created the banknote has died before 1939, respectively. Which license would you use? --DrHok (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

According to §5 UrhG (the German copyright law), official works are exempt from copyright. Official means every work, that is formally proclaimed, instead of just published by the government. Banknotes are proclaimed, just like laws and verdicts. Their designs are announced in the governmental register. So {{PD-GermanGov}} is perfectly fine. --h-stt !? 12:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hm.. OK, but the law (UrhG § 5) talks about "Gesetze, Verordnungen [...]" (laws, decrees etc.), i.e. publications having to do with legislation as such. Images are only covered as part of a legislative publication (see de:Amtliches_Werk). Furthermore, the law is from 1966 (Federal Republic of Germany) while the banknotes are from 1920 (Deutsches Reich), predating the law. --DrHok (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In Germany, we love retroactive copyright laws; read § 129 Werke UrhG. sугсго 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If you find an answer to this question could you please add a couple of lines about it on Commons:Currency or it's talk page. Thanks /Lokal_Profil 16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The predecessor of the UrhG was the s:de:Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der Literatur und der Tonkunst of 1907. It already contained the same exemption in §16 (and yes, it covers the illustrations in question because of §1 No.3). --h-stt !? 09:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I am still not convinced. I am not a lawyer, so I might simply be unable to parse the (notoriously convoluted) law lingo correctly, even though I am German. Using common sense I'd say §1 merely defines the scope of the law. The detailed exemption in §16 doesn't seem to cover anything but law texts and texts to be used by authorities. I mean I would be glad if this discussion could be closed, because I uploaded the images, but I'd rather read an assessment by a lawperson. Anyone around here? --DrHok (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure, if "Notgeld" was in any way officially proclaimed as is the case with regular banknotes. The special thing about the "Notgeld = Emergency money" was, that it was issued by the local municipallities in very short intervals. The reason for this was that the galloping inflation didn't allow to wait for the official banknotes to arrive, because when they did a whole bunch of zeros would be missing on them allready. Therefore this "Notgeld" is very attractive, because local motives, by local artists were used. Perhaps somebody should look for the legislation that made the issue of such "Notgeld" possible in the first place and perhaps we can draw an anallogy to regular banknotes from there. --Wuselig (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Grace's Guides.

Could an expert cast an eye on this Copyright statement, on the Glass's guide wiki. [3] It seems to me that the text can be freely cut and pasted, but what about the images. Are they being slightly generous in their interpretation of UK law. For instance [4]. This is a 1951 image? Does their licence allow us to upload it? Can someone give an opinion please? --ClemRutter (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look in the light print at the bottom, they explicitly specify GFDL 1.2 or later as their license. So, any of their original content can just be tagged {{GFDL}} and uploaded here. However... that would not apply to content not created by them, such as the image you point out. Looks like that was published by "British Steam Specialties" in 1951, which if anonymous the copyright would expire in 2022, and if the "B.E.H. Z---" on the lower left is the artist, then 70 years after his/her death. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Box art?

Does this count as free? http://www.flickr.com/photos/royalport/422268734/

Specifically, I'm a little hazy on what is acceptable when it comes to pictures of copyrighted items. For example, it is apparently okay to host pictures of Super Nintendos, is it then also okay to host a picture of the box? Or is that crossing a line because of the box art? Where is the line with these sorts of things? ~ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 02:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not free. Have a look at Commons:De minimis. The box art is indeed the fly in the ointment. Super Nintendos (the machines themselves) are probably allowed since utalitarian objects (things we use, like cups, cars, tvs, chairs) themselves can't be copyrighted (iirc). Anrie (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, probably not free, though it could pass as fair use on Wikipedia if you had some specific point about the box art that you wanted to illustrate with it. But do see Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Check my work?

Can someone please take a look at File:Jonathan Edwards 1817.jpg and check to make sure my copyrights are in order?--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's {{PD-art}}: by looking at the source picture, only the frame has been removed from the representation of the original. --Eusebius (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, good. That's what I thought. Thanks!--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for caring about the issue! I wish all uploads were documented like that. --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

125 kb restriction on CC license

As per OTRS Ticket#2009010910006781 and the following OTRS Wiki I am calling for help to clarify.

I am helping a user who has gotten permission to use photos from Dresden under cc-by-sa-3.0 if they are not uploaded in sizes larger than 125 kb.

The legal code section 4.a says

"You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License"

Will this 125 kb rule conflict with the demands of ability to share the work? --|EPO| da: 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • That looks like that resolution limit would restrict the CC license improperly. Here is a possible workaround: We consider the below-125kb version of the original work (which would presumably be >125kb) to be a derivative work. Therefore, the cc-by-sa-3.0 release of the below-125kb version would be appropriate. How does that sound? That way, the image that we have on file is within cc-by-sa-3.0 and is not covered by the restriction in the OTRS, making the question moot. Now, it might be a good idea to protect that image from being edited, to prevent someone from impermissibly uploading a >125kb version.--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call that a workaround, I would call that the terms -- it sounds like the author is licensing the 125KB and less photos under CC-BY-SA-3.0, and no license on the larger versions. Nothing wrong with that. The author cannot restrict what people later do with those <=125KB versions, but they have the perfect right to choose what versions they license and what they don't. A smaller version wouldn't qualify for a derivative copyright if someone else scaled it down, but that is irrelevant -- it is a separate work and can have a separate license, I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It is perfectly valid to license only small copies of photographs or other works, but not the original size. All the 100.000 photographs from the German Federal Archive have been uploaded with 800px as the longer side, even though larger scans are available directly from the Archive - but then of course for a fee. --h-stt !? 08:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Carl Lindberg and h-stt: There is no technological measure imposed in this case. Just the downscaled variants are licensed under CC but you have all freedoms of the CC license for the small images below 125 kb. This is similar to cases where photographers upload their photos not at the full resolution to the Commons but offer full scale licenses through different licenses. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


Allowed or not?

Do we allow upload of images that require (per copyright holder) an active link to the external source website? This problem (Can be used only with an active link) exists with File:20070913-latynina.jpg.--Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Использование материалов spletnik.ru разрешено только при наличии активной ссылки на источник. Все права на картинки и тексты принадлежат их авторам. The second sentence reads All rights on images and texts are owned by their authors. No free licence. sугсго 07:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Old pictures: Julius von Haast

Hi, I doubt if it would be ok to upload a pair of pictures of Julius von Haast (1822-1887). I found them here and here. It's likely they are in public domain, but I don't know anything about the author, so I can't be sure. .So, can I upload them? and if the asnweris yes, with which license?. Thanks in advance. --Erfil (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures are necessarily anterior to 1887, so I think they can safely be considered {{PD-old}}. --Eusebius (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! :) --Erfil (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Signatures

I uploaded a few autographs of writers; however, I was't able to find among the licenses the one that e. g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picasso_signature.svg has. How do I put that one to the picture when uploading it, please, so that I don't need to waste your time and space with changing it via "edit"? Or can an autograph which really includes nothing but the author's name be licensed as "Too simple to be copyrighted"? --HTO (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Have a look at Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. In most countries (UK is an exception, perhaps extending to the Commonwealth), if the signature is simple enough (and I think it is the case here), it is ineligible to copyright and tagged as {{PD-signature}}. --Eusebius (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup once again! --HTO (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible unfree image

Could somebody check File:Schempp-Hirth Discus CS.jpeg for me please. The image shows a copyright watermark and the uploader does not appear to be the photographer, original image here where it states it is copyright protected. Says it was uploaded from Wikipedia [5] but nothing exists there, just like to clarify the situation. Thanks Nimbus227 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a copyvio. The original is at [6]. I'll tag it for deletion straight away. Thanks for letting us know! Pruneautalk 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure as it seemed to be there a long time with a blatant copyright watermark. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the original en-wiki upload log, it was uploaded with the emailed permission of the original author. Still, that would probably have to be forwarded to OTRS, and the en-wiki user appears to have stopped contributing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Question

I was about to upload a picture of my High School's banner, but wasn't sure if I need some sort of copyright license for that....--Gordonrox2448 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your high school banner either has o be old enough to be PD or you need the creator to release it under a free license. As the copyright status of those kind of imagery is often pretty hard to determine, I am afraid we cannot use it here. However, it might qualify for Fair Use on en.wikipedia. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Gordonrox2448 (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyrightability of satellite imagery

Please direct me to a relevant discussion if one has previously taken place. I'm wondering about the copyrightable elements of satellite images. Suppose I took a screen capture of a satellite view of a city from Google Earth (images appearing in which are copyrighted), and created a map by tracing the streets of the city from the satellite image. Will my map be considered a derivative work (and unsuitable for Commons), or is such information uncopyrightable and my work therefore original? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:PD-Vlaams-gemeentewapen

According to this template "The coat of arms belongs to the public domain of a city of municipality. Using it for advertising purposes, for example as a brand, is strictly forbidden." Can it be public domain, or at least acceptable according to our guidelines, if commercial use is forbidden? Cheers, Ciell (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, coats of arms of countries/cities/counties/municipalities/etc. cannot be trademarked per the Paris Convention, so entities generally all have special laws to protect them like that. They are not part of copyright law though, so as far as Commons as concerned, they are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions and we normally just mark them with an {{insignia}} tag (the license tag here though mentions the more specific law, so is enough by itself). Copyright in coats of arms is different... those often belong to the particular artist who draws a particular version, but some countries do have laws which inherently prevent them from being copyrighted too... no idea if that is the case here, but the tag seems to indicate it is, for at least a region in Belgium. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

CC Developing Nations license

Can I use it for Commons? [7] --Kozuch (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't post on every page in Commons. I replied on COM:VP. --Tryphon (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use or original work?

Hello. I took a photograph that uses a few bars of Franz Schubert's sheet music. A low-res preview can be found here. I'm unsure whether I have the right to license the work however I want.

I understand that while the composition itself is in public domain, the score - a relatively new publication - is covered by copyright. (according to the IMSLP project, the total copyright length of a particular score is equal to the longest of the copyright terms given to the three concerned parties: composer, publisher and editor if there is one.) So, does this mean that the pic falls under fair use and should be uploaded to my local wiki instead? –neurovelho 15:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think de minimis would apply here. You're clearly not trying to reproduce the sheet of music, and most of it is out of focus anyway. --Tryphon (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Most copyright law do not protect the typographical arrangement of published editions; see de:Rechtsschutz_von_Schriftzeichen#Schutz_typographisch_gesetzter_Texte. But there are some laws who do, mostly countries which were British colonies, like Australia or South Africa. Sadly, I don not know whether the US copyrigth law protect them. sугсго 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Typographical arrangement is not protected in the U.S. "Prints" can be, like certain greeting card designs, but there needs to be some copyrightable graphic element (like an elaborate border or something). As for this, I agree it is de minimis even if it was copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers, I agree that it is indeed de minimis. Uploaded the picture as Image:Sheet music.jpg. –neurovelho 19:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Museum run

Hi there, I noticed there is a project running over at English Wikipedia these days for users to coordinate documenting museum exhibitions in the US. While I did not study the details of that project, I would like to ask for possible copyvio judgement on my own "museum run" images, because some users of the Czech Wikipedia doubt the ability to freely license such images. I did not arrange anything with the Czech National Museum, had neither spoken nor written permission and just went, bought a photographers permission and shot. The pics are in Category:Století českého hokeje (2008-2009). I hope there will be no licensing problems. The museum website is here. Thank you!--Kozuch (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your generous contributions. I love your Buran OK-GLI shots.
Even if there is a law against publishing the pictures you took with your photo permit, (such as the Egyptian laws on photographs of antiquities) consensus here has been to accept such pictures. Of course, you need to research the author (artist, sculptor ...), especially the dates of death and of publication, to be sure that the object you photographed is in the public domain.
  • For example,
    Stoleti ceskeho hokeje 04.JPG

    looks like copyright infringement, as it is a picture of text was written recently by a museum curator.
  • This 1998 memorabilia
    Stoleti ceskeho hokeje 01.JPG

    (vase and pennant) should also be deleted, as most of the other recent memoraibilia
For this 1909 medal,
Stoleti ceskeho hokeje 01.JPG

, we need to know that the artist died more than 70 years ago to keep it. See Commons:Licensing#Czech Republic
I don't know the Czech copyright law on utilitarian objects. If it is like US law, we can keep these hockey sticks:
Stoleti ceskeho hokeje 37.JPG

.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Google books

It has probably been discussed already, but I couldn't find a definite answer (only this templates which seems to be meant for images extracted from Google books, not whole books). I know that those books are PD, but Google claims copyright on them nonetheless (see this book for example), arguing that the work they put into scanning justifies it. So my question is, do we agree with this statement and forbid complete Google books from being uploaded to Commons, or do we consider that this claim has no grounds and allow these books as PD-old? In any case, I think it would be a good idea to add the answer to COM:CB. --Tryphon (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't agree with the statement; see Template:PD-Art, which says "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". I see no reason to believe that replacing "works of art" with books will change anything. Nor does Google claim copyright on them; read that first page closely. It says things like "Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians" and "we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes" (not "you must").--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I missed the subtle difference of tone between a license agreement (you are forbidden to, you must not, ...) and this text without legal value, where Google kindly asks us not to use it commercially, even if we have the right to do so (we ask you, we request, ...) I knew about {{PD-Art}}, but I figured that taking a picture of a painting or scanning one illustration was not as much work as scanning a whole book, and that this amount of work might lead to a new copyright. Thank you for the clarification. --Tryphon (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Flickr low resoultion images

I have asked a Flickr user if he/she would release the rights for an image for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. He/She said no, but is currently considering if he/she might let the use of a low resoulation image free. On COM:FLICKR, it states if the full image isn't free to try low resolution image. He/She wants to know how he states that the use of a low resoulution image is under a different licence.  The Windler talk  10:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You could ask them to send an e-mail to OTRS, or to post a comment under his picture stating that they release it. In either case, make sure that they clearly state the licence under which they release the image (like CC-BY-SA). You should probably also make a note in the image description here about the fact that higher resolution versions are not under a free licence. Pruneautalk 11:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, thankyou. I have sent him a FlickrMail stating your comments. Thankyou.  The Windler talk  11:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Works PD in the USA and 70-pma countries but not in their source countries

I would like to raise a community discussion about works PD in the USA and 70-pma countries but not in their source countries. This can happen when a work was published in its author's lifetime before 1923, the author died more than 70 years ago, but the source country copyrights for life plus more than 70 years, such as 75, 80, 99, or 100 years. In response to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Internationale, I consider excluding Pierre Degeyter's music of The Internationale potentially causing more problems than benefits. I know only a few countries speaking French or Spanish still copyright the music. As I know no Chinese, English, or Japanese countries still copyrighting the music, deleting the template will force duplicating the file at several wikis inefficiently. Therefore, I would like to request comments about this matter. As posthumous works are copyrighted in certain countries based on how many years after publication, they are not part of this topic while Pierre Degeyter's music was not posthumous.--Jusjih (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Falling rain

From time to time I find map files taken from Falling Rain (like this). As far as I can see is there no free license given. Are these files subject for deletion or is there any special agreement? --Mazbln (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a copyright violation of this image. Ww2censor (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

SVG and fonts

It is my understanding that raster images that contain fonts cannot ever be copyrighted simply on that basis alone, but if the same image was SVG, then it would be uploading a copyrightable "computer program" in terms of copyright law in the US (as I recently reminded of Commons:Deletion requests/File:De Beers.svg). So.... does that mean we can't have SVG images of typefaces that aren't free here on the commons? Because I believe there are quite a few examples: File:Torchwoodtitle.svg, File:SPD logo.svg, File:CDU logo.svg, File:USDA logo.svg, File:Gnomelogo.svg, File:CUPS.svg, File:Dresearch logo.svg, File:Die Linke logo.svg, etc. I know that SVGs uploaded to the commons won't work if they have an embedded font, so all of these images of fonts have been converted to outlines... but still, I'd like a definitive answer regarding this.-Andrew c (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And how would that affect half the images found at Category:Alphabet images that should use vector graphics?-Andrew c (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It may be somewhat dependent on country, but in the U.S., I don't think there is an issue -- "typeface as typeface" is not copyrightable; and these are examples of them being used as typeface. An outlined SVG has lost all kerning and other info which make up a font anyways. Embedded fonts are much more dubious copyright-wise, so it is probably better to avoid those (though that is routinely done with PDFs in th real world). I'm not aware of any court case specifically on this issue, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but this type of thing seems to be OK. w:Wikipedia:PD#Fonts says the same thing, including in the UK. Font files are protectable, but the uses typically aren't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
So Commons:Deletion requests/File:De Beers.svg was deleted for no reason?-Andrew c (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
COM:L#Fonts.-Andrew c (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well... an incorrect reason, plus possibly allowing a uploader to delete a (thought mistaken) recent upload. The COM:L#Fonts statement is incorrect, from everything that I've ever seen. It may well be confusing bitmap vs vector font files... apparently there have been several cases where even bitmap font files were found to not be copyrightable in the U.S. (which may well not be true in other countries). The w:Wikipedia:PD#Fonts section is far more correct and much better referenced (for example, the UK copyright law has a specific section which declares that uses of a typeface are not protected by the copyright on the font). From the com.fonts FAQ: The short answer in the USA: Typefaces are not copyrightable; bitmapped fonts are not copyrightable, but scalable fonts are copyrightable. That says nothing about the uses though, just the font files. The U.S. Copyright Office still maintains that the shape of the letters is not protectable (bitmap or apparently vector)... their most relevant ruling states: ... the Copyright Office is persuaded that creating scalable typefonts using already-digitized typeface represents a significant change in the industry since our previous Policy Decision. We are also persuaded that computer programs designed for generating typeface in conjunction with low resolution and other printing devices may involve original computer instructions entitled protection under the Copyright Act. For example, the creation of scalable font output programs to produce harmonious fonts consisting of hundreds of characters typically involves many decisions in drafting the instructions that drive the printer. The expression of these decisions is neither limited by the unprotectable shape of the letters nor functionally mandated. This expression, assuming it meets the usual standard of authorship, is thus registerable as a computer program. That appears to be saying that the vector shapes of the letters are still unprotectable, but all of the hinting, kerning, and other non-shape information which goes into a font does constitute expression, and is protectable as a computer program. A vector SVG does not contain that information though. The Copyright Office further states in that document: Pursuant to Congress's judgment in the 1976 Act and case law, the Copyright Office does not register claims to copyright in typeface designs as such, whether generated by a computer program, or represented in drawings, hard metal type, or any other form. I would think that the SVG outlines are typeface generated by a protected computer program, but are not copyrightable in themselves. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg: Given this information, it appears that both {{PD-font}} and COM:L#Fonts are wrong; do you want to make the changes, or should I? --Tryphon (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
My time is going to be limited for a few days, so go ahead -- I'll get to it eventually if someone else doesn't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for more opinions from the Wikipedia:Public domain talk page (and the user who wrote the PD-text template). Hopefully this will lead to a strong consensus where I won't have to ask the same question every 3 years ([8]!!)-Andrew c (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
In response to Andrew's request for comment, I think Carl is mostly correct, though I would be somewhat more cautious on some points than he is being. An SVG per se is not evil. However, an SVG probably qualifies as a "programming language" within the somewhat bizarre US framework of Adobe v. Southern. That is to say that because an SVG contains a set of instructions for how to render an image (and not merely a fixed representation), one has to give consideration to whether those instructions are eligible for copyright. Ordinarily a typeface is not subject to copyright, however the instructions used to generate it might be (if they meet minimum standards for creativity, etc.).
So what does it mean? If you make an SVG by tracing a raster representation of a text logo, then that should never infringe anyone else's copyright (by US standards). We can and should encourage people to do that. On the other extreme, there is the question of uploading a publisher's existing SVG that renders as a text logo. The cautious approach is to assume that this is never okay, since the publisher may be entitled to copyright on their particular SVG code, even though you would be perfectly within your rights to rerender the image yourself. Conversion of PDFs and other vector format text logos into SVGs suffer the same problem, since those transformations generally preserve the underlying vector syntax and you are still copying the publisher's "code" for how to create the logo. So personally, I would say "thumbs up to making your own SVG text logos" and "thumbs down to importing vector logos from non-free documents".
Obviously there are some nuances here that haven't really been captured in many of the existing policy guidelines. There is also the issue that as far as I know there has never been a case on point specifically involving SVGs, so the arguments have to follow by analogy from the somewhat tortured logic of Adobe v. Southern. It is possible that judges might ultimately decide that a font definition file is a "computer program" but an SVG is somehow not, but for the moment I think it makes sense to react with caution and assume they potentially both are copyrightable as "code". In practice, if you see an SVG text logo copied directly from a publisher, I'd say the cautious action is blow it up to very large size, rasterize it, and then you use one of the various SVG tracing programs to create an independent SVG implementation of that image. Once you do that, any trace of the publisher's "code" should be gone and with it their potential claim to copyright. Dragons flight (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm an IP attorney who once knew way too much about copyright protection for fonts and typefaces than is normal (and assisted in the comp.fonts FAQ quoted above), so let me weigh in here just a bit. The basic rule in the US, adopted in the case Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1978), and since followed by the U.S. Copyright Office in its determinations on whether to register copyright claims (the CO has no jurisdiction to "rule" that a given type of work is subject to copyright, but needs to make that determination to determine whether or not to accept a registration) is that typeface, as such, is not subject to copyright.

When I say "typeface, as such," I'm referring to the letterforms themselves. As one Congressional report put it, it's "a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters." s:Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476), page 55.

Now, a font, in this context, is not the same thing as a typeface. A font is an article "in which a typeface resides as the implement of printing technology, regardless of medium or form" (H.R. 1790, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. § 1001(b)(4) (1991), defining "typefont"). This includes, for example, a computer program for producing the typeface output.

The Copyright Office, noting this distinction, promulgated the confusing-sounding regulation that Carl Lindberg notes above, now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(e): "The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained: (e) Typeface as typeface." What this means is that the CO will accept registrations for computer programs that produce typeface as output; but not on the typeface itself. Fonts such as TrueType fonts and PostScript fonts are really computer programs that produce typeface as output, and are subject to copyright to the same extent (and limitations) as other computer programs.

I'm foggy on what a SVG font actually contains, and whether it would be considered a computer program under this criteria. I do note that, in a not-so-clear opinion in Adobe Systems, Inc. and Emigre, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. and King, No. C95-20710 RMW, N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 1998, the federal district court in the northern district of California (that's a trial court, not a court of appeals), found infringement of Adobe's fonts based on Southern Software's copying the coordinates of the glyphs in the fonts, but not the actual instructions. The court, a little confusingly, noted that the resulting glyph instructions were "functionally identical to those of the original font software program," and seems to have relied on that as the basis of infringement, despite the fact that function is not protected by copyright. In any event, it's worth noting that in this case, although the specific format of the Adobe fonts was not mentioned, the court took as given (or perhaps Southern did not dispute) that they were computer programs. If an SVG font does not qualify as a computer program, then most or all of this case is probably not applicable.

For more information on copyright protection in the U.S. for fonts and typeface, I refer you to Terrence J. Carroll, Protection For Typeface Designs: A Copyright Proposal, 10 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 139 (1994), online copy here. Despite it being some 15 years old now, it's still pretty accurate, apart from the lack of discussion of the Adobe case discussed above, which was decided four years after the article was published. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's good to have a bit of domain knowledge :-) An SVG is basically like an EPS or PDF file, except the base format is XML so that users (sometimes) can directly edit them with a text editor. It is a vector graphics format, and is a W3C standard, and is now getting support directly in web browsers (though not IE, I don't think). Wikimedia just renders a PNG at the desired size though. Note that there is a font format defined as part of the specification, but those are not what we are talking about here (obviously converted SVG fonts are not allowed, and I don't think Wikimedia works with embedded fonts anyways). I would disagree that these are derivative works of the vector fonts used in them -- that is the exact situation that the Copyright Office (and Congress) was trying to avoid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Cascade_Range_related_plate_tectonics-de.svg

Hello!

I uploaded the file mentioned above, which is a translation of the french version File:Cascade_Range_related_plate_tectonics-fr.svg, which itself is the (slightly altered) translation of the english version File:Cascade_Range-related_plate_tectonics.svg. I adopted the licenses of these versions. On the german wikipedia I was reminded that it would be better to set the license to {{PD-USGov-USGS}}, since all the versions are derivative works of File:Cascade_Range-related_plate_tectonics.png. I'm pretty new to all this stuff and I'm asking myself whether it is OK to change the license to the original one. regards --El Grafo (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A derivative of a public domain work can be made by anyone and released under whatever license they like. If you aren't the author, you have no right to change that license, and if you make a derivative work of their work, you do it under their terms, not that of the original.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! --El Grafo (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Princess Caroline of Monaco photo permission

Hi. I found an image of Princess Caroline of Monaco on flickr taken by the Council of Europe and sent them an email through flickr asking for permission to use it. This was their response:


Dear Mr James, Thanks for your message. Do not hesitate to use our photos as long as you quote the references of the copyright of the Council of Europe and the complete reference of the photographer as indicated on Flicker. Yours sincerely, S. Lobey Council of Europe Publishing publishing@coe.int


I indicated that only cc attribution or sharealike or public domain or GFDL were permissible licenses, and they responded with the above. Should I send another message or can I work with that somehow? The image can be seen at :http://www.flickr.com/photos/councilofeurope/3047242609/. I'm thinking I'll have to get them to license it under one of the two cc licenses, but I wanted to ask if there was any way Wikipedia could work with what they gave me. Please respond on my talk page as I'm more likely to check that. Jonjames1986 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

CC legalcodes

Hello! CC-by and CC-by-sa in all versions and languages requrire to "include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform."[1] The Commons Deed "is not a license. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the Legal Code (the full license) — it is a human-readable expression of some of its key terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license." Our CC licence tags include only a link to the deed (example by-sa 3.0) and not (additionally) a link to the full legalcode (here again 3.0 as example) like it is demanded. Each import from Commons to another Wikimedia project is therefore not fully conform to the licence, neither are dumps and 1:1 copies outside of our projects. I'd like to propose to adjust this in all templates for example in a pattern like this:

{{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de/layout
|text=This file is licensed under [[w:Creative Commons|Creative Commons]] [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.Licensing Attribution ShareAlike 3.0] License. Legalcode: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode}} 

The CC templates are write protected, but if wanted and if an admin would temporarily unblock them I am willing to do the work, based on a pattern that the community prefers. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. underlines added by me
I think you're reading too much into it. The deed links to the legal code. Creative Commons themselves only link to the deed, not directly to the legal code. See, for example, the results of their license generator, or the license tag at the bottom of any of their web pages. --dave pape (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
What specifically am I reading to much in "include the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for this License with every copy"? That's a clear condition. One Example: de:Datei:ETalk2008-Diddy2.jpg says: Offizieller Lizenztext (= official licence text) but the link leads instead of the legal code to the deed without any legal value, so that de-WP uses this pic incorrect.--Martina Nolte (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the authors of the license itself do not link to the full legal code would basically seem to indicate that we don't need to either; by their example linking to the deed is enough. Presumably they aren't violating their own license. It wouldn't hurt, though I would not emphasize the link (especially showing the text of the full URL), but I would agree with dave pape that they are not necessary. Flickr and Picasaweb also link to just the deed on their pages when users tag them with CC licenses, as further examples. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The authors of course can give CC only with a link to the deed, but reusing then the image without the complete URI makes the licence expire, and we are spreading this little, but possibly harmful mistake by our templates, which additionally we force authors to use for CC licensing. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll still disagree :-) It says a URI, not a URL. There is a difference. To me, that is just some sort of indication so that a potential re-user can unambiguously find the full license; to me a link to the deed is enough (indeed, the string "cc-by-sa-2.0" is probably enough without a link... which could be necessary in some contexts, for example postcards). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
en:Uniform_Resource_Identifier (de:Uniform_Resource_Identifier) are clearly explaining what the difference is; it still means a deep link to the legalcode of the licence. We are not talking about personal opinions with "to me" and "probably", but about legal requirements. --Martina Nolte (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we're talking about your interpretation of what the legal code required. I think indeed you're reading too much into this. Note that the legal code doesn't say "a URI to this legal code", it says "a URI to this License". The CC themselves say "Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code)." and they clearly consider the URI to the deed to be a URI to the license. The deed is one of three ways to express this license, the legal code is another one. In court, you'd use the legal code, but otherwise, you'd point people to the deed, which is much easier to understand. "No having legal force" doesn't mean the deed was invalid or not a license: it just means you might have a hard time enforcing it if it weren't backed by the legal code. Lupo 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The FAQ on which you refer also says: "The Commons Deed is a summary of the key terms of the actual license (which is the Legal Code)" and again "This Deed itself has no legal value", and "The Legal Code is the actual license". Linking to the deed is recommended like we recommend the "gentlemen's agreement" for GFDL contents, knowing that it is not completly safe for reusers.--Martina Nolte (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That's how the licences could look like after correcting them CC templates. example alreday given above--Martina Nolte (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
As I offered to do the work I do not see any problem in adjusting them fully conform to the licence.--Martina Nolte (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that there are a lot of those templates? See Commons:Template i18n/Creative Commons License tags for a rough overvirw, there might be even more in Category:CC license tags. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that. I offered to do the work because I didn't want to demand something and then let someone else to spend his time on it. --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Museum für Antike Schifffahrt

Hello, I would like to upload about 100 pictures (own work) from the Museum für Antike Schifffahrt (Museum of Ancient Navigation in Mainz, Germany. It's a public museum, no entrance fees and there seemed to be a sign on the wall says that pictures are only allowed for private purposes. The exhibits are almost exclusively no original ancient arifacts, but faithful copies, casts and also models, which are created by the workshop next door belonging to the museum. There are four distinct categories:

While I am fairly certain that the casts and copies are below the threshold of originality, I am less sure, though, about the ship models and other wooden reconstructions, because their creation seem to have involved, in view of the fragmented information coming dow to us from antiquity, a certain amount of scholarship, interpretation and creative activity. So my question is which pics am I allowed to upload? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No comments? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine, as noone cares about the pics, I pepp them up with some explicit pics from Paris Hilton. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Walking with Dinosaurs - The Live Experience

I saw one of the shows at HP Pavilion last December. Photography is permitted per their website, just no video or flash. I took a lot of pics, many of which actually turned out pretty good. The dinosaurs are animatronic or people in animatronic costumes depending on the size. There is basically no other means of getting any free media of the series other than going to one of the performances, and the educational value is definitely there. However can I upload them here or are they fair use, including the setup of HP Pavilion for the show? --BrokenSphere 20:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question. My intuition is that these would be derivative works, and so they'd have to be uploaded under fair use on En and only ones that you intend to add to specific articles. Commons:Freedom of panorama does not apply because of the country (there's only freedom of panorama for buildings in the US) and also the private indoor nature of the show. We're not concerned with whether or not they allow photography. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Too bad they can't go up here. BrokenSphere 23:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mexico or UK?

I stupidly uploaded File:Interoceanic Railway.jpg and File:Mexican Railway.jpg before checking the publication information. It appears to have been published in London in 1912, which would (I believe) make it public domain (though the tag I used is incorrect). But the title page also lists Mexico City and New York. I can't figure out whether the Mexican publication is a problem. Please help me figure out (a) whether this is PD worldwide and (b) if not, whether this is PD in the US (and can thus be uploaded to enwiki). Thank you. --NE2 (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As it was published prior to 1923, there's no question that it's PD-US. But it seems to be a work of a Mexican author published in Mexico, which most likely makes it still in copyright in Mexico. It doesn't have to be PD worldwide for Commons, but there is a rule about being out of copyright in its source country. I'd say the source country is the UK, but that means you have to show the author's been dead for 70 years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be a work of corporate authorship - what's the rule for those in the UK? --NE2 (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
life of author+70. Or in the case of things like maps life of the last author to die +70.Geni (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, who's the author of this book? The only credits I see are "McCorquodale & Company Limited". --NE2 (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
From the title pages, I believe the London publication is the one relevent for copyright status. The listing of New York and Mexico City seem to be the publisher listing branch offices or distributors. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

According to [9] it's public domain in the UK. Does everyone agree that this chart is correct? --NE2 (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - I tagged the images with {{PD-because}}; I'm not sure if there's a better template to use. --NE2 (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I question yur defintion of the author being known. I think the UK has some quite high requrements for the author to be considered unknown.Geni (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Link please? --NE2 (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
9(5) For the purposes of this Part the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry; but if his identity is once known it shall not subsequently be regarded as unknown.[10] Problem is in this case that would at the very least mean contacting mexico's En:Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit and asking if they know.Geni (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:El Grito.jpg

Edvard Munch died in 1944 which is only 65 years ago, i.e., the "life of the author plus 70 years"-rule is not fulfilled. --Mollerup (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Military Insignia from Israel

More than one year ago, there was a DR for {{Military Insignia}} with the conclusion that with few exceptions military insignia that aren't {{PD-old}} cannot be considered free. This meanwhile deprecated license template was kept at the DR with the intention to go through all files using it. Apparently, this didn't happen to a considerable extent as this template is still referenced by myriads of images with no other license tags. I took a particular look at Category:Insignia of the Israel Defense Forces and found a significant number of images that are eligible for copyright but do not come with appropriate license tags. Some of them carry still {{Military Insignia}}, others have no license tag at all. I'm inclined to file them for deletion but would like to hear your comments first. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The US government ({{PD-USGov}}), and in some cases other governments, don't recognize copyright on their insignias. Otherwise, if they've got to go, they've got to go.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Architet dead, who is the copyright holder?

Hello. If an architect dies, who is the copyright holder of the drawings & photos from his archive? His main inheritor? The case: I wrote an email to the architect of a building (address over his website), his son answered and is willing to send me material about the object. The architect (Georgian) died in 2007. Can the son give the required permissons if he is the inheritor? TomAlt (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If no one else is mentioned in the will as getting the copyrights, and the son split the inheritance with no one, then, yes, he can give permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

US Copyright of Public Place Statues

I have read Wikimedia Commons discussions of the US Copyright situation for Public Place Statues, and of course I have seen photos of statues in public places in Boston and Baltimore and Philadelphia, PA here.

Please explain to me when a digital photo taken by me of a statue in a public park in the United States is subject to copyright, or when I can upload it here and grant full permission to use it.

See Commons:Freedom of panorama. I quote:

For artworks Nuvola apps error.png not OK. For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. However, public artwork installed before 1923 is considered to be public domain, and can be photographed freely. (Prior to 1978, when the definition changed, works of art such as statues or sculptures that were permanently installed in a public place were considered in general to be published, so usual U.S. copyright law such as {{PD-US}} or {{PD-1923}} applies.) In these situations, document the date of installation and the creator (sculptor) of the pictured work as much as possible. (A good resource for finding information about U.S. sculptures is the Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog.) {{PD-US-no notice}} can also apply however, demonstrated in the infamous case surrounding Chicago Picasso.


Hope this helps. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But it's a little more complicated than that, because until 1978 it was required to give a notice of copyright, and to renew copyright after 28 years. From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html:

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright lasted for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. The copyright was eligible for renewal during the last (28th) year of the first term. If renewed, the copyright was extended for a second term of 28 years.1 If not renewed, the copyright expired at the end of the first 28-year term. The term of copyright for works published with a year date in the notice that is earlier than the actual date of publication is computed from the year date in the copyright notice.

...

The old system of computing the duration of protection was carried over into the 1976 statute with one major change: the length of the second term is increased to 67 years. Thus, the maximum total term of copyright protection for works already protected by federal statute is increased from 56 years (a first term of 28 years plus a renewal term of 28 years) to 95 years (a first term of 28 years plus a renewal term of 67 years).

I would confidently say that most public sculptures erected in the U.S. in the 1920s through 1940s did not have their copyrights renewed. Thus, by 1976, most had entered the public domain. It can, frankly, be a pain to track down the status of individual works, but in many cases sculptures from this era are no longer copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

nonexisting license template

We have a {{Cc-by-sa-2.5-de}} license tamplate in use by 100+ images but this license does not exist at Creative Commons thus this is not a valid license. They have a german cc-by-sa-2.0 license and a german cc-by-sa-3.0 license but not of the 2.5 license version. What should we do with this template - we can't use a non-existing license. We have two options: redirect to {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-de}} or to {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Any thoughts ? I'd say redirect to cc-by-sa-2.5 as this is the original/intended license type .--Denniss (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, it appears that it started out as the German translation of {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}, but was then moved to be a separate license template, which it should not have been. I would redirect/merge back to cc-by-sa-2.5, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, redirect or merge to cc-by-sa-2.5. Kaldari (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sampling plus license

Freesound uses the following license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0 My interpretation is of the plain English text and I had extracted small bits of the audio track and uploaded it to commons, but User:AVRS informs me that this is not a free license and has deleted these. Perhaps someone can look over the legalese. Shyamal (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 (I’ve been writing this at the same time as Shyamal have been writing their text)

There are some works at Commons that are licensed under the [Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/legalcode], or include other works under that license.

The license itself prohibits commercial use of the works (3d), except when the work is significantly modified or made a part of a larger work, so that it is insignificant for the latter (3a). The derivative works can be used both commercially and non-commercially.

Thus, the unmodified work is not free.

There is some confusion with respect to the freedom of the permitted derivative works. As far as I can tell, the prohibition on advertising (3c) excludes “all advertising and promotional uses” from both the rights on the unmodified work and on the derivative works. Because it may not always be immediately clear (like it was not for me), especially because the Commons Deed (human-readable expression of the license says “You may not use this work to advertise for or promote anything but the work you create from it.”, I think that maybe there should be something more easily readable to link to.

--AVRS (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that not many people look at this page. The link on http://www.freesound.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1724 says that the meaning of "advertising" is to use it for unrelated products. I guess that is outside the scope of Wikimedia to control and the files that were deleted should be restored with the licensing corrected with a link to the license. The Freesound forum specifically clarifies that
"
  • Can I use freesound samples in my game/song/website/film/etc?
Yes! As long as you properly attribute the sample, you may reproduce, remix, and incorporate the sample into your work any way you like.
  • Can I use freesound samples in my commercial/for-profit project?
Yes! However, you may not use a sample in advertising that is not related to the work. For instance, if you use a freesound sample in your film, you can sell copies of the film, and use the sample in ads for the film and the film's soundtrack. However, you can't use the sample to sell an unrelated product like shampoo or a car.You also must properly attribute the sample. "

So it seems to be perfectly compatible with other free licenses. Shyamal (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Licensing requires that the uploaded media "can be used by anyone, for any purpose", and the clarifications from the cited forum posting contradict that by excluding certain purposes. One can also question if they are a valid interpretation of the actual legal text of the CC license - which the posting itself refers to for "further clarification".
And by the way, determining the exact meaning of "noncommercial" as used in the CC licenses is a very hairy issue, a problem which Creative Commons itself implicitly acknowledged last fall by launching a research study on this question.
Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it doesn't sound like CC Sampling Plus is a valid free license for Wikipedia given the clarifications cited above. Content on Wikipedia must be free for any use. Kaldari (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-Yugoslavia}}

Hi, I don't really understand what this template tells about what's PD and what's not. It isn't clear to me at all, it seems to me that it talks only about side issues. Thanks in advance for your help! (NB it's been applied to File:Brdm-2 ypa.jpg, I wanted to know whether it was ok) --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that template makes no sense to me. You should ask Rainman as he created it with the mysterious edit summary: "new template that solves problems". Kaldari (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Creating an official process for approving licensing templates

I have made a proposal on the Village pump for creating an official process for approving licensing templates on Commons. Please join the discussion there. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Canadian National Vimy Memorial - .Mother Canada.JPG

Is the condition used with {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} for this image compliant with COM:L? The condition reads: "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that any individual seeking to publish this photo contact the uploader directly in order to obtain and publish the image under their proper and legal name." I would have thought it isn't compliant given that the condition effectively requires notification of the creator each and every time the image is used, but wanted to seek clarification here first. Thanks. --skeezix1000 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I took the photo. The acknowledgment of all authors/contributors of a work may be required, or at least that is what is stated under COM:L Acceptable licenses. My requirement is that I be contacted so that any user employs my legal name and not my user name in publication. Labattblueboy (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that you can require attribution, but COM:L clearly states that a license must not require notification of the creator in order to allow usage of the image (although it can be requested). I would have thought that one cannot use the requirement for attribution to effectively impose a restriction that is otherwise not permitted on the Commons. If one wants a user to use a legal name, the solution (I would think) would be to either add it to the image description page, or to amend the condition so that it is a request, not a requirement. --skeezix1000 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe there is some level of confusion here. I am not requiring contact to know how the image is being used, I don't care and would frankly encourage it's use. I have after all made it available for any purpose. What I do care about is that my legal name be used in attribution if it be used in publication. At the same time I am not interested in attaching my legal name to my wiki user name. Though this line of interpretation I don't see how there is any violation of COM:L Acceptable licenses. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You're requiring someone to contact you to use the image. It doesn't matter why; it's generally understood that people who can't contact you, or who don't feel it's safe to contact you still should have the right to use free content. (In this case, a pacifist in a military dictatorship may well not want to advertise the fact that they're making copies of this picture, and email is unencrypted and easily tracked by a national firewall.) You can connect your real name to the image or not, as you will, but you can't force people to email you to get it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that distinction has been made in COM:L Acceptable licenses. To be honest I'm surprised something like this hasn't come up before and if it has why no policy clarification has been conducted. I'll consider modifying the license but if you're looking for something more concrete I would like the issue refereed to arbitration. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I changed permission to {{cc-by-sa-2.0-ca}} with a notation that I wish to retain "Moral Right of Attribution of the Original Author" as per section 4 of the Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Canada. With attribution as legal name being requested --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me: "The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: [...] Notification of the creator required [...] for some uses". I'm drawing on my familiarity with other Free Content organizations that have dealt with the issue (Debian, in particular), but I don't find COM:L unclear on the point nor the idea behind it unclear. I'm not going to argue with the license you've changed it to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Labattblueboy. I also see that you've made the same change to the license of other images you've uploaded -- much appreciated. --skeezix1000 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

LOC, New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection.

Hi, I need some help in understanding the page linked in the Library of Congress template i added to File:Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and architect Ieoh Ming Pei.jpg. The licensing info in the LOC http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/076_nyw.html says: Images created by NYWT&S staff photographs are public domain. The source http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c12045 says United Press International photo. Is this Line, United Press International photo, the author information? If yes, this image, among others, is not public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, UPI is the creator of the photo and this is not public domain. You should have noticed that there is no blue border around the thumbnail image, indicating that no high-resolution version is available for download -- that's your first clue. howcheng {chat} 16:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question Signal

Hi Folks! May be s.o. has got an idea: In 1937 the Ullstein-Verlag was renamed into Deutscher Verlag. It published the Wehrmacht prpaganda journal Signal. The photographs published here often were taken by members of the Propagandakompanien. You guess it: I'd like to know the copyright status of photos and texts. It is Wehrmacht stuff and it is a private publishing house. Thanks for helping! --C.G. (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Under US law, which Commons has to follow, copyright exists for all documents published after 1922, with exceptions that primarily apply to US works. Under German law, which Commons chooses to follow for German works, copyright exists for 70 years after the death of the author. In both cases, it's unlikely it's out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Prosfilaes, but I know that. There are certain exceptions concerning material of state agencies, this is why I asked. I'd like to know whether these exceptions apply to this case - state (Wehrmacht)/private (publishing house). Best regards --C.G. (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The exemption for "official works" is (and was back then) much narrower in Germany than in the US. It only applies to statues, laws, court decisions, publications in a public register and the like. It does not apply to other works and publications created by or edited by state agencies. So these photographs are covered by the very normal copyright laws and are protected until 70 years pma. --h-stt !? 09:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The Bundesarchiv would have the authority to release Wehrmacht images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

seed herbarium image project photo license help

hello, i created a wikipedia page for the seed herbarium image project including several photos from the project which are copyright by president and fellows harvard college. i was initially instructed (by the photographer) to use a GNU license, but this i guess was incorrect and the photos were deleted. the creator of the images has spoken with the university of which the project is a part and has been issued specific permission to use the photos she took (but they own copyright) for the wikipedia page. what copyright/license information do i need to provide to upload these files in following with wikipedia/wikimedia's guidelines? thank you,

SeedHerbariumImageProject (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, permission for use on wikipedia is not enough; we need permission for anyone to use the images for any purpose. Then, the university should send permission (with a specific choice of license) to OTRS so that we can create a ticket for the images as a proof that the author granted permission. Don't hesitate to ask if you need any more help. –Tryphon 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I import these photos under Creative Commons license ?

Hello,

I'd like to import these photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/flobro/3150654389/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/zoriah/3170393848/.

They are tagged "Creative Commons licence" - free to use, author to be stated, no commercial use.

Is it ok to import them in Wikimedia Commons ?

Thanks

--Oudeis1 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. We consider licenses that restrict commercial use as non-free. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses for details. –Tryphon 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

CC legalcodes

  • Back from archive because still not solved. Sie müssen dabei stets eine Kopie dieser Lizenz oder deren vollständige Internetadresse in Form des Uniform-Resource-Identifier (URI) beifügen. / You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License The Deed is not the Licence. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! CC-by and CC-by-sa in all versions and languages requrire to "include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform."[1] The Commons Deed "is not a license. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the Legal Code (the full license) — it is a human-readable expression of some of its key terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license." Our CC licence tags include only a link to the deed (example by-sa 3.0) and not (additionally) a link to the full legalcode (here again 3.0 as example) like it is demanded. Each import from Commons to another Wikimedia project is therefore not fully conform to the licence, neither are dumps and 1:1 copies outside of our projects. I'd like to propose to adjust this in all templates for example in a pattern like this: Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-de/layout

The CC templates are write protected, but if wanted and if an admin would temporarily unblock them I am willing to do the work, based on a pattern that the community prefers. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. underlines added by me
I think you're reading too much into it. The deed links to the legal code. Creative Commons themselves only link to the deed, not directly to the legal code. See, for example, the results of their license generator, or the license tag at the bottom of any of their web pages. --dave pape (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
What specifically am I reading to much in "include the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for this License with every copy"? That's a clear condition. One Example: de:Datei:ETalk2008-Diddy2.jpg says: Offizieller Lizenztext (= official licence text) but the link leads instead of the legal code to the deed without any legal value, so that de-WP uses this pic incorrect.--Martina Nolte (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the authors of the license itself do not link to the full legal code would basically seem to indicate that we don't need to either; by their example linking to the deed is enough. Presumably they aren't violating their own license. It wouldn't hurt, though I would not emphasize the link (especially showing the text of the full URL), but I would agree with dave pape that they are not necessary. Flickr and Picasaweb also link to just the deed on their pages when users tag them with CC licenses, as further examples. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The authors of course can give CC only with a link to the deed, but reusing then the image without the complete URI makes the licence expire, and we are spreading this little, but possibly harmful mistake by our templates, which additionally we force authors to use for CC licensing. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll still disagree :-) It says a URI, not a URL. There is a difference. To me, that is just some sort of indication so that a potential re-user can unambiguously find the full license; to me a link to the deed is enough (indeed, the string "cc-by-sa-2.0" is probably enough without a link... which could be necessary in some contexts, for example postcards). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
en:Uniform_Resource_Identifier (de:Uniform_Resource_Identifier) are clearly explaining what the difference is; it still means a deep link to the legalcode of the licence. We are not talking about personal opinions with "to me" and "probably", but about legal requirements. --Martina Nolte (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we're talking about your interpretation of what the legal code required. I think indeed you're reading too much into this. Note that the legal code doesn't say "a URI to this legal code", it says "a URI to this License". The CC themselves say "Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code)." and they clearly consider the URI to the deed to be a URI to the license. The deed is one of three ways to express this license, the legal code is another one. In court, you'd use the legal code, but otherwise, you'd point people to the deed, which is much easier to understand. "No having legal force" doesn't mean the deed was invalid or not a license: it just means you might have a hard time enforcing it if it weren't backed by the legal code. Lupo 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The FAQ on which you refer also says: "The Commons Deed is a summary of the key terms of the actual license (which is the Legal Code)" and again "This Deed itself has no legal value", and "The Legal Code is the actual license". Linking to the deed is recommended like we recommend the "gentlemen's agreement" for GFDL contents, knowing that it is not completly safe for reusers.--Martina Nolte (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That's how the licences could look like after correcting them CC templates. example alreday given above--Martina Nolte (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
As I offered to do the work I do not see any problem in adjusting them fully conform to the licence.--Martina Nolte (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that there are a lot of those templates? See Commons:Template i18n/Creative Commons License tags for a rough overvirw, there might be even more in Category:CC license tags. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that. I offered to do the work because I didn't want to demand something and then let someone else to spend his time on it. --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
What exactly should speak again my proposal for an additonal link to the legal code in each CC-template? --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Horse Memorial Copyright

A while ago a bunch of pictures of the Crazy Horse Memorial got deleted, since they were of an object that is copyrighted, so can't be put here on Commons. A couple are on Wikipedia with fair-use rationales, which is correct. It seems that in the meantime, a few pictures have been added to commons in Category:Crazy Horse Memorial, but going by the discussion in the old delete page, the new images should be removed unless they have permission from the people who own the Crazy Horse Memorial. Hustvedt (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, both the 2008 deletion discussion and the Crazy Horse photography policy page clearly indicate that as a statue all images are, unfortunately, still copyright. Ww2censor (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy on bylines?

Photo: xxx yyy

I would like to know what the policy is on images where the creator requires bylines? That is where the creators name must be mentioned next to the image, as in the example picture. It has been speculated on the Swedish Wikipedia that this may not make the image free enough for Commons, but no one seems to know for sure. Any thoughts? I know some Wikipedias avoid bylines, but I would like to know what Commons position is? Thank you in advance. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:PD-stamp

Some created {{PD-stamp}}. Doesn't seem a good idea to me in the current form, see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-stamp. Multichill (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree; stamps become PD for various reasons (some due to regular age, some are PD per specific laws) and we have more specific tags for each of those situations. The page the tag points to even asks for specific licensing tags to be used. The current name will likely result in many non-free stamps being tagged, which will be much harder to detect at a glance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It would however be helpful to mention stamps on PD-...Gov and PD-...exempt tags which actually cover stamps (I'm thinking about {{PD-RU-exempt}}, {{PD-UA-exempt}} or {{PD-UKGov}} for example). –Tryphon 15:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If the idea is to use this auxiliary template in addition to a main PD-...Gov or PD-...exempt tag, as supposed here by EugeneZelenko, it is reasonable to implement it modifying, of course, its documentation wording. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If it is felt to be helpful, then it should probably be a wrapper template which takes the actual license template as an argument. In my opinion, it should be renamed to not have "PD" as part of its name, and it should definitely not look like a license tag (especially not contain the "PD" logo), since it shouldn't be one. Otherwise, the temptation will be to use it alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand Carl concerns. Other solution then renaming template - to amend country PD- tags with stamp information with references to laws, cases, etc. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a license?

Is it o.k. when a user uploads a cropped version of an originally CC-BY-SA licensed image (File:Scar star.jpg) and then puts this (allowed) derivative under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, thereby adding a totally different license, as was done with this File:Scar Star02.JPG? --Túrelio (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The crop probably doesn't even add any new copyright. In any case, the point of CC-by-SA is that derivative works must be under the same license, which GFDL obviously isn't. Also, the cropped image is under different versions of CC-by-SA. As the original image is under 2.0, the derivative may only be under 2.0 as well. I will fix the license tag. --rimshottalk 11:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding GFDL isn't allowed. However, taking a CC-BY-SA-2.0 file and releasing a derivative work under a later version, e.g. CC-BY-SA-3.0, is fine (article 4b of the legal code). Pruneautalk 11:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to all. That was helpful.--Túrelio (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can hieroglyph's be considered PD-text?

Okay, funny question I found at nl-pedia: can hieroglyph's be considered PD-text? Ciell (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the point in showing hieroglyphs is not about the meaning/content of the text but about how it is pictured, just like an arabic calligraphy, for instance. Or maybe you can consider it a PD-old font face :- --Eusebius (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
To make an analogy, consider Category:A. An ordinary letter A doesn't get its own license tag, but these do. Hieroglyphic symbols that are used very frequently without deviation might fall under PD-text, but any glyph with an original design wouldn't. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree; a text of hieroglyphics is just as much text as anything in Latin or Hanzi. You can make an artistic work of hieroglyphs, just like you can make artistic work out of Latin characters or Hanzi, but something that's written in simple hieroglyphics would fall under PD-text. More directly to your statements, there are texts that have been reprinted in hieroglyphics purely for content, and printing in Cyrillic or Arabic in a volume that otherwise transliterates those texts doesn't make it not PD-text, even though it's about showing the form of the script instead of the meaning. Without deviation is not important; handwriting doesn't generally get a copyright, either. Hieroglyphs as text are just text. (And at least half of Category:A falls under PD-Text anyway.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Calligraphy is specifically mentioned as not copyrightable by the U.S. Copyright Office (it is considered a typeface; the example given is Chinese calligraphy[11]). Unless the basic shapes themselves are newly made-up, I don't see why hieroglyphs would be any different. A significant portion of Category:A would indeed not be copyrightable in the U.S. (things like File:A Vignette.gif would be, because they contain elements not dictated by the shape of the letter, but not a good many of them). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Catalog fair use question

Hi all. I recently uploaded a collection of about 2500 high-resolution scans of works by Wenzel Hollar. I'm now in the process of categorizing them, placing them in articles, and adding as much information as possible to their image description pages. To this end I've ordered a book entitled A Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar by Richard Pennington of Cambridge University. It's an unparalleled academic source, largely consisting of short entries on particular works, such as:

1540. Petrarch's Laura, after Giorgione. 88×66, 96×68. Bust, half r. She has her hair in a patterned bag behind her head, and wears a low-cut bodice with a straight border and puffed sleeves and with four ties in front. A thin string is round her neck, and descends into her bodice. In upper l. corner of des.: WHollar fecit / 1646 [F. LBM. Pr. W.

So here's my dilemma: if it were just a few images, there wouldn't be a problem with quoting these entries in their entirety with attribution to help describe the images. But if I do this for all 2500 images, well, Hollar only produced about 2700 images in all, and I'll be copying half the book. There's little room for paraphrasing or summary, as short as they are already. What's the right approach here? Dcoetzee (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The factual information like original work, date, plate numbers, and dimensions should be fine. But no, I would not copy the descriptive sentences, if they come from that 1982 book (and not the 1853 book which it was built on). People can still look at the image and add a description. You could use them as input for CommonSense or something to get categories, but I think copying the descriptive text wholesale is (way) too much. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

copyfraud in France

Does anyone knows the equivalent term in French or has a reference for it in the French law/jurisprudence? --Eusebius (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing metadata

When there's no metadata, I became suspicious of images uploaded in Flickr. I uploaded File:Avril Juno 2003.jpg and would like to ask if the author really owns the image. Its being used in WikiPedia. Thanks. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously doubtful. The image appears here (posting in 2006, 2+ years before it was uploaded to flickr), and that flickr user's image gallery shows many other likely copyvios. Ah, I think the immediate source is here, which has been on that site since 2005. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Thank you both. –Tryphon 09:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Same as here: Image:Avril Juno 08.jpg. Missing metadata. Please delete if proven an imagevio. Please also review this: File:Chris Martin - Viva la Vida.jpg. It got compatible license but has a watermark that contains the copyright logo. Thanks folks. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The Avril Lavigne image Flickr username sounds a bit like User:Vitor mazuco, will check it. The Colplay image and Flickr user is perfectly fine, everything ok with the copyright and the user, of course also cc-images are copyrighted, but some rights are released. --Martin H. (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, Thanks for the notification on the Avril image, the proof was much more easier than expected: Just take a look to the metadata of http://www.flickr.com/photos/32798589@N02/3063759049/. (right side of the page: more properties) --Martin H. (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:PD Indonesian Government

One question according to this category and the corresponding license {{PD-IDGov}}, lets take an example which is sourced, most of the images are poorley sourced:

  • File:Fotowapresdn.jpg is from www.indoneasi.go.id.
  • Section b) of the (UN translated) law says: [...] except if the Copyright is declared [...] at the time the work is published.
  • Of course there is a copyright notice on the website, All rights reserved.
  • Without giving a source published prior to this publication without a copyright notice the licensing is invalid and the image, and most other portraits in the category, is a copyright violation.

--Martin H. (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought that that "Section b" means already copyrighted materials will not turn into PD materials once posted by the government in their webspace where PD is expected. For instance, photos from the US federal government (sorry, I don't have an Indonesian example) are PD, but sometimes copyrighted pictures, usually from news agencies, appear on US federal government webpages with the photo credit attributed to someone not working for the government. (Example: the photo of the Chogye temple from "AP" on this webpage of the State Department.) Such "borrowed" images remains non-PD. I assume that other pictures on the same government webpages, with no photo credit attributed to non-government sources, are works of the government and hence PD according to the law. I am not sure now that I have read your interpretation of the law. --PFHLai (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Garden tags

My last vacation, I took a number of pictures of plants in the Springs Preserve. As you can see in File:Mammillaria pseudoperbella - Springs Preserve.jpg, many of them were conveniently marked with labels giving common and scientific names, and also a small logo and the URL of their website. This one could probably be cropped out, but some of them are right dead center of the plant and would have to be digitally erased, hurting the integrity of the picture. I think there should be no concern with the names; I'm personally not fussed with showing the URL, but think some might be, but the logo starts to reach into territory where I would have to invoke de minimus, which makes me want a second opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a textbook case of de minimis. No need to worry unless you zoomed in on the logo in one of your photos. Plus, it's easy to remove if necessary without generation loss in the rest of the image using lossless editing tools. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
While in the some of the pictures the tag is probably two or three times as large due to the positioning and relative size of the plant, in none of the ones I'm uploading was there an emphasis on the tag, much less the logo. But what tools would remove it from a file born as a JPEG without generation loss? I should probably recrop a couple of my recent pictures with those tools, as they were loaded into GIMP and cut, which does have some generation loss.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Unless the focus of the photo is of the logo, I would think it would still be de minimis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of lossless cropping tools, most notably the free JPEGCrop. The only lossless editing tool I'm aware of for editing portions of JPEG images (without loss to the rest of it) is BetterJPEG. See my essay User:Dcoetzee/Commons:Coping with lossy compression. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

r.e. 9.67.1: U.S. Government

Under 9.67.1, "Works by the US Government", the last notation beginning "The United States Army Institute of Heraldry" the text reads:

Institute of Heraldry— the official custodian of ALL United States governmental images...

Implying the Institute is, well, official custodian of all U.S. Governmental images. Based upon the Wikipedia entry linked to in that item and a link within that entry & identified as official, i think that they are in fact official custodians of all U.S. Military logos, insignia and heraldic imagery only. Oddly i also failed to locate a copyright statement of any sort, even a © statement on any page of the site. The front page does carry a note that images on the site are protected by "Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507)", which cover unauthorized wear, manufacture or sales of insignia, awards, etc., but nowhere did i see the word "copyright" or symbol "©". Am i missing something?

Context (btw) is i am seeking © status of images from World War II, non-photographic renderings, from a(n online) U.S. Army Ordnance database that is a joint program with a University; database home page, entries & images bearing no copyright information.

Thanks! Snozzwanger (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They are Commons:non-copyright restrictions; as a work of the federal government they are not copyrighted. We typically tag such images with {{insignia}} to denote that (and noting the specific laws is also helpful). You're right though; that bit about all images is incorrect -- I think they only have control over military insignia. While the Institute has designed seals and flags for other parts of the government, the authority for those symbols is held by those respective agencies, and similar restrictions for those exist elsewhere in U.S. law (all of them non-copyright related, though). As for your images, if they were made by government artists, then they are OK. If they were possibly made by non-government folks and just displayed there, that could be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Barns grand tetons.jpg

During an review at en-wiki, I noticed an, for me, irregularity in the "PD"-license in the linked image; the license states: You may use this image for any purpose, including commercial. As the owner I have explicitly placed it in the public domain. If you do use it, please consider linking back to pdphoto.org. Use it for whatever you want. Use it all. Sell it. Mangle it. Whatever you want. Please. But it would be polite to let me know so I can at least enjoy whatever creative use you're putting it to. This doesn't mean that you can take the material and then copyright it yourself. It's in the public domain and that's where I want it to stay.

The first this is the bolded statement, which I think isn't compatible with an PD declaration; Second is that the declaration doesn't address in the event the image is used in a country not having a legal PD thingi. AzaToth 21:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unclear copyright status, IMHO. Does the uploader want users to use a “viral PD license”, or does he state the usual “you can't relicense my work if you didn't do anything on it”? Diti the penguin 21:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
My interpretation is that the guy writing this knows what he's talking about and is explicitly and irrevocably releasing the work into the public domain. He's merely asserting that you may not assert copyright over the unmodified material, which is quite true; he neither says or implies anything about licensing of derivative works. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom:Ordinary Copyright

I have coded up the Tim Padfield pdf into our own format, and placed it at Duration of Copyright (UK) flowchart. Before it becomes useful it does need to be carefully proofread. That said- I hope it will be useful. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that given the rather specific defintion of unknown under UK law "For the purposes of this Part the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry; but if his identity is once known it shall not subsequently be regarded as unknown." The first question may prove problematical.Geni (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Added: as note. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm also not getting what is going on with the whole has it been published thing. Surely thats publication right rather than copyright and only lasts 25 years. Also UK law is retrospective so dates of death shouldn't be relivant.Geni (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:PD-Yugoslavia

{{PD-Yugoslavia}} seems quite problematic to me. It was apparently created (both here and on en-wiki) with the intention of serving as a PD tag for state-produced material created by the old Yugoslavia. But the text it quotes does not contain anything about things being in the public domain. The text is concerned solely with the question of how state property (including copyrights) are to be divided up between the Yugoslav successor states. So, old state copyrights are now jointly held by several states. But they are still copyrights. There may well be some rule, either in the legislation of old Yugoslavia or in that of the successor states, that also places certain official materials into the public domain. But then we need to quote those laws; this one isn't it.

See parallel discussion at en:Template talk:PD-Yugoslavia. Fut.Perf. 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a complete rewording so that it makes at least a bit of sense [12], but I'm not certain this is really correct. Fut.Perf. 21:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

On images of coins obtained from unknown source

There are some images such as File:2 euro coin Fr.jpg that show a coin - the design of the coin itself is permitted, as explained in the license tag, but the page provides no source for the image. PD-Art does not apply here because it's a 3D design and also not actually public domain. Likewise PD-Scan is unlikely to apply, partly because light patterns demonstrate that it ain't a scan. These are also obviously easy to replace with higher-resolution free images where the photographer releases the rights. Does anyone agree with me that a mass deletion is warranted for these? Dcoetzee (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It says that the source is the Europeam Central Bank. What is your problem? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This looks like the source page though the size is slightly larger than the commons file, so you may prefer to add it. Ww2censor (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the license tag is correct, it is too broad. Actually, according to Commons:Currency#Euro, "Copyright of the national side of the coin is determined by the individual Member States in accordance with national legislation". There are not nation-specific notices for the Euro zone in our Currency page, but if I remember well the policy of the Banque de France is to keep copyright on both notes and coins. --Eusebius (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. I did not realize that the ECB explicitly put its coin photographs into the public domain. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You probably did not realize it because it is not true. The current text of this particular template is notoriously wrong and misleading. Anyway, this image shows a national side of an euro coin and, as explained in another comment above, its copyright is owned by the relevant national government body (in the case of this particular coin, the government of France), and those entities generally do not allow free use of it. The ECB has nothing to do with that copyright (although its site surely has got a permission to show this image). Copyrights relative to euro-currency are owned like this : On euro bank notes = owned by the European Central Bank. On the common sides of euro coins = owned by the European Community (with a delegation to national bodies). On the national sides of euro coins = owned by the government body of the relevant country. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
My question is not regarding the coin designs themselves but the photographs shown on the website. Do any new rights attach to these, and if so are they released by the copyright holder? At Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, it suggests that new rights do attach to photographs of coins. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as you already mentioned, it is generally considered that new rights do attach to photographs of 3D objects. And, unless the copyright owner explicitly releases the rights on it, it is not freely usable. IMHO, the usage notice on the site, allowing reuse of the "information", cannot be transposed to images, and certainly not to non-free material whose copyright is owned by a third party. Hence, the other point, which is to say that, anyway, the question of determining if a derived photograph is free is mostly relevant in cases when the represented object is itself free (or is not the main subject of the photograph). However, it doesn't change anything when, more basically, the photograph is a derivative work essentially reproducing a non-free original work whose copyright is owned by someone else, and therefore the photographer who makes a derived photograph from that preexisting non-free work doesn't even have the possibility of making the non-free original work free in the first place, because that right belongs to the copyright owner on the original work. In short, such an image is in copyvio here for two reasons, once for reproducing the copyrighted non-free original work (the design), and once for reproducing the copyrighted non-free derivative work (the photograph). -- Asclepias (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
My impression is that the copyright status of the national side varies from nation to nation (from Commons:Currency: "Copyright of the national side of the coin is determined by the individual Member States in accordance with national legislation") so the design may or may not be copyrighted based on the whims of the local legislature. The ECB has authorized reproduction of the common side without relief subject to defamation terms (don't ask me if that makes it non-free or free). Given the ambiguity of this situation, I think the more straightforward path to deletion is that the website does not clearly release the separate rights attached to the photograph (particularly since many of these images are easy to replace with free images, in member countries where the design is free). Dcoetzee (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I mostly agree. Just adding a few details for additional clarity:
"the copyright status of the national side varies from nation to nation" -> Exactly. That's what I was trying to say (although perhaps not as clearly as I wanted, as English is not my language). We know that many countries do not allow free use of it. I'm not excluding the possibility that there might be other countries that allow free use of it, but the burden is upon the uploader to provide a valid source stating that the country owning the copyright explicitly allows free use of it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be kept on Commons. It is not enough to upload an image without even knowing or verifying what the copyright status is in that country and just place some wrong template on it.
"the design may or may not be copyrighted" -> It is necessarily always copyrighted, although the country owning the copyright may allow some degree of conditional reproduction.
"The ECB has authorized reproduction of the common side (...) " -> Like mentioned above, it's not the ECB, it's the EC who allows the conditional reproduction of the common sides of the metal coins. The ECB owns the copyright on the paper notes (and allows a distinct sort of conditional use for them), whereas the EC owns the copyright on the common side of the metal coins. Like you say, it's not entirely clear if it makes it "free", but I'm not really opposed to keeping, on that ground, images of the common sides, with an appropriate warning tag about the design, provided that, other than that restriction, the image itself is explicitly and verifiably free. I understand that you are saying that currently the latter condition is apparently not met by a large number of those image. I believe that you may be correct. Here too, if an uploader claims that an image is free, the burden is upon him to provide either an explicit source, or a rationale showing that the image is not an image of a 3-D coin but an image of the 2D design. This might be a possibility in the case of some images, but it should be reasonably clear.
-- Asclepias (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: Copyright on old works

I always thought that sufficiently old works would be public domain, since the copyright expired 70 years after the death of the creator. In case of an image of Constance from 1575 here I contend it is safe to assume that the creator has been dead for more than 70 years, even when we don't know who the creator was and when exactly he died. But written on the left margin, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Jewish National & University Library claims copyright. Does scanning of a century-old work indeed establish a new copyright in favor of the one who scans it?--Ratzer1 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you heard about w:en:Copyfraud? This image is ok for Commons, with a {{PD-Art}} tag. Sv1xv (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Or {{PD-Scan}}, more appropriately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Am I allowed to remove the fraudulent copyright claim with a graphic program, such as PhotoImpact?--Ratzer1 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes - and if you're not able to, go ahead and upload it and mark it with {{watermark}} and someone else will. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A scan is a mere mechanical process with no creative work involved. No copyright can arise from it Belgrano (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

1992 Norway stamp tagged with PD-Old?

It looks like stamps of this country are generally copyrighted, except for those that can be tagged with {{PD-Old}}. However, someone decided to tag with that licensing template a Norway stamp issued in 1992. Is that correct? Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not the date of issuance of the stamp but the date of death of the original author of the design depicted on the stamp. However, I find the arguments that the design has been significantly modified since its inception convincing. I recommend an undeletion request. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact is that the image was decided to be kept, so it's not deleted, while I think it should be. So, an undeletion request seems to be not a good option. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
On English Wikipedia the equivalent process is called "deletion review" and also handles cases such as yours. I think they should be willing to take it here as well, despite the different name. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ubisoft

A number of images I recently uploaded from Wikipedia have been tagged for deletion as copyvios (see my talk page for the list); I had been under the impression that they could be used because of the Ubisoft license. The tagger said that Ubisoft's license allows only user-made screenshots, and not those taken from its website. I can't seem to locate the license itself (it's not linked to from the template!), so I was wondering if somebody could look into this. Thanks! --Drilnoth (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the tagger's comment is the safer position. As you may know, the so-called Ubisoft license is actually a somewhat ambiguous e-mail from an Ubisoft manager, which e-mail after much debate has been loosely interpreted on Commons as sufficient to allow user-made screenshots. (I still wonder if that employee has been fired since then.) Seeing how that is already fragile ground, you probably shouldn't push your luck too far by copying stuff from their website unless it is explicitly presented there as being freely reusable. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay; thanks. I didn't know where that license information came from and I couldn't find it on their website, but now I understand. That is dangerous ground. Thanks! --Drilnoth (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I am the tagger, and I have two other questions concerning Ubisoft permission.
Any thoughts ? Jean-Frédéric (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Suurhusen Church-Pisa Tower comparison: questionable license

The image is helpful to compare the inclination of the two towers. Yet I question the validity of the license. To me it looks like a composition of individual images downloaded from an agency. In fact, on the Pisa tower image the letters "ETTY" are still visible, a hint of a Getty Images download. How to proceed in such a case? Thank you. --Iotatau (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if the photographer is en employee of "20minutos", we have no reason to believe that "20minutos" or that particular photographer agrees with a release under a creative commons license. So I would say "delete". Teofilo (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Nominate it for deletion. That seems like a pretty obvious problem; each image seems to have a separate credit so there is not a single copyright owner who can license it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. As a matter of politeness I have left a message on the talk page of the uploader and asked for a clarification until the end of April. --Iotatau (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
As much as I admire your tact in this matter, I think it's a pretty obvious copyright violation. For one, the credit on 20minutos shows that it's not one of their images, so they cannot release it under cc-by. And as Carl Lindberg said, two images have two separate copyrights, so there's really no way around it. I'm gooing to proceed and delete it, as I don't see how waiting a month will change anything. –Tryphon 09:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for handling it. --Iotatau (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There is not only Getty Images, but also Getty Museum. I've just checked the Getty Images Database. They have about 360 colour images for the tower, but because of the strange perspective with the cathedral hiding that much of the tower (until after the dark entrance in the row above) there are not much left: this and this. The second one is more like it. But since the watermark of Getty Images looks a little bit different it was probably taken from some newspaper who bought it from Getty. -- Cecil (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)