Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 22

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

Head of a statue of Saddam Hussein

I have absolutely no idea of the copyright issues that may pertain to the salvaged head of an Iraqi statue of Saddam Hussein. I know next to nothing about Iraqi copyright law. I've uploaded one of a set of images I took at the Fort Lewis Military Museum. No issue about photographing in the museum, they welcome cameras, and they put no restrictions on reuse of images. If this image is OK, then I have about half a dozen photos of the head. If not, we can delete. But I definitely need a more knowledgable opinion here. - Jmabel ! talk 06:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Roughly a week, no comments. I could really use advice here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have no problems with any photograph you took. See en:Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images which states that "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright, though others may continue to hold copyright in items depicted in such photographs." Ecphora (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
See the last part of the sentence. That the fotographer holds a new copyright means that the original sculptor cannot take the photo and use it without asking. It doesn't mean that derived works are free to use without his permission. There may be other reasons for the photo to be free to use here, such as freedom of panorama or "copyfreeness" of governemental works. But that is a question of local legislation (at the time the statue was made—the status of new legislation may be unclear as Iraq is still under occupation).
I think you'd better ask on the Arabic wikipedia or the Arabic willage pump – or perhaps rather the embassy page (cut'n paste was tricky, I hope this works, otherwise there is a link from the willage pump page). The commons' page about copyright has very little to say about Iraq and nobody was answering here, so I think no one here knows.
--LPfi (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, LPfi. Yes, I was aware of what you said about the original sculptor's rights; also, though, I suspect that both Iraqi and U.S. copyright law come into play, because the picture was snapped in the U.S. I don't read or write Arabic, so I can't really leave a note usefully on an Arabic village pump, but if someone wants to follow up that way, do please feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I suspected you do not read Arabic, that is why I suggested the ambassy page, where questions in English are welcome (the link from the willage pump is also in English). I know nothing about the USA law, but I would assume it would not be a problem, if publishing the photo would be ok by Iraqi law. It is of course also possible that you can publish the photo in the USA regardless of the Iraqi laws (although I find that unlikely). --LPfi (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I've now asked there, and asked them to reply here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not renewed

Before I categorize the images listed at User_talk:Atomicsteve#Please_link_images, would someone check if {{PD-US-not renewed}} on most of them is ok? -- User:Docu at 06:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

USGov: Details on NPS photos

I'm not happy with the recent addition on the status of NPS images. The nps.gov domain is huge and this problem seems to cover only one (of two) methods of access to just one program under the cover of the NPS, the database of PDFs with scans of the original registration forms in the National Register of Historic Places. There and only there a faulty database states all images to be PD even when they are not. Everywhere else on the huge NPS site, non free images (that occur only very rarely) are clearly labeled as such.

So I would like to question if we really need this kind of disclaimer on our licensing page, because if we mention thus small problems that are not legal, but simply database issues of a government website and image source, this page can easily reach a MB in size soon. --h-stt !? 07:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed... the issue is not significant enough to merit that much text (and putting all NPS images in doubt like it seems to). It is covered by the first bullet point, in that the NHRP images are not works by federal government employees but appear on a government website, but it may warrant an additional one-sentence mention (or indented subsection) that images of that particular program are mislabeled public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
removed. --h-stt !? 18:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

License given for File:Technopark kerala logo.gif is certainly wrong. I suspect it is too simple to copyright, so I'm not nominating for deletion, but could someone who knows more about the status of logos please take a look? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right, it should be {{PD-textlogo}}, possibly together with {{Trademark}}. Sv1xv (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to what Sv1xv said. –Tryphon 18:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

License question

Is it possible, and if yes under which license, to upload pictures of statues located in (Japanese) temples, shrines and museums? Specifically these statues. bamse (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All old statues are perfectly fine, the creator must be dead for 70 years. --h-stt !? 08:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem then. The creators have been dead for a couple of hundred years. Am I free to use any license or is a special license required? bamse (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious painting

File:Ascetic Bodhisatta Gotama with the Group of Five.jpg appears to have been drawn in the past 50-60 years. It's a lovely painting but doesn't the artist have some sort of copyright over his image? Shii (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The uploader claims to be the artist, giving to us the right to use it under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Only free content" and privacy

The preamble of Commons:Licensing states that "Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content", where "free content" is a link to freedomdefined.org. The linked page says that "The work itself must not be covered by legal ... limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above."

I have understood that Wikimedia Commons welcomes content that is limited by privacy concerns and similar. I think it would be very bad for Commons to reject media that can be misused by not respecting privacy concerns and similar, or media with identifiable people not agreeing to the media being "misused". The Project Scope is about serving educational media. Rejecting media that cannot freely be used in advertisements or pornography due to privacy concerns is contraproductive for the goal of the project. This includes all portraits, because they can be photoshoped to be used in nasty pictures.

Thus I think the link to the definition of Free Content is misleading as the only definition of free content. It should be made explicit that media on Commons may still be subject to privacy concerns and that identifiable persons do not have to accept the media being used in circumstances clearly out of the project's scope. I think we should concentrate on restrictions in the media formats and the licenses themselves and leave privacy concerns to the legislators and those using the pictures.

There may be areas for which careful wording is important. On the one hand we want to be able to explain people posing for photographs in what ways we are going to use or allow use of the pictures, on the other hand people using the media (in ways we want to encourage) must know that the media are free to use. I would e.g. interpret the "educational use" very broadly. Is there a discussion on these matters somewhere? The license page is not the right place, other than for a short comment and a link.

--LPfi (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Commons has to take into account privacy laws because it is illegal to publish a photo (i.e. having an available copy on the site) which violates those laws, so Wikimedia itself would be liable -- they are a problem in *all* circumstances. But do note that all photographs of identifiable people are *not* necessarily privacy issues -- photographs taken without any expectation of privacy (i.e. in public) are fine. Personality/publicity rights are entirely different -- those govern use of a person's name or image in advertizing or similar contexts, and those rights would have to be negotiated with the pictured person. However, we don't delete images because of that (see the note at the bottom of that preamble). In short, images can be deleted if they are not licensed under copyright, and also if our intended usage in educational contexts is still a violation of the law (which can most certainly be true of photographs which invade privacy). Some countries do have a "portrait right", which gives the pictured person some copyright-ish control over their own portraits, which can also muddy the waters. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the policy and guidelines seem to agree with my previous impression, but I myself missed the footnote (perhaps because they usually are not used in this way on Wikipedia). I think the description could be clarified (and will make a try myself). --LPfi (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Live feeds

I've been meaning to bring this up for a while now, but somehow never found the time to do it. We've had a few DRs (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna Paquin 1 (2009).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yvonne Strahovski (1).jpg) regarding live feeds, and the images have been kept under the assumption that the work is not fixated, hence cannot be copyrighted. This is true, but how can we be sure that the live feed is not simultaneously recorded (in which case the video would be copyrighted and any picture of it would be a derivative work, just like live TV programs)? What kind of "proof" or statement (and from who) do we require to ensure that the video has not been recorded? Because even if the footage is archived and not published, it is my understanding that a copyright would be associated with the video. –Tryphon 09:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For a copyright to exist, you need at least 3 things: originality, fixation, and author. Here you have none of these, so even if the video is recorded, it doesn't make it copyrighted because you have no originality and no real author (I think the technician setting up the camera cannot be the author). Yann (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not talking about those DRs specifically. I'm trying to figure out what criteria we should apply to live feeds in general.
About the three requirements you mention, I agree that a work has to be original and fixed on a tangible medium to be copyrighted. But for the author part, I don't know where it comes from; sure the technician is not the author (just like a cameraman is not the author of a movie), but if the video is recorded, the company recording it would surely be the copyright holder. As for originality, the fact that the recording is automated doesn't mean that the work is not original in the sense of copyright laws; the process used for making the work is irrelevant, only the content is relevant. –Tryphon 11:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that is true. Automatic camera systems do not create a copyright, so the process is important to determine if there is a copyright. Videos from monitoring systems, and passport size pictures from automatic machines are not copyrighted. Yann (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, but I can't find anything specific in the U.S. copyright law. Do you have some references? –Tryphon 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Not easy, but I found this [2] "because the surveillance video lacks sufficient originality, it is not subject to copyright". Yann (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Good finding, thanks a lot! Several interesting things in this document:
  1. The reason why there is no copyright in a surveillance video is because it lacks originality; more specifically, there was no creativity involved on what to record; when to record; or how to record it.
  2. The author is the makers of the video images, those whose equipment generated the video images and stored the video images.
So for a live feed to be free of any copyright, it has to either not be recorded at all (again, what kind of proof do we require to assert that), or completely lack creativity (for example a fixed camera, where no one choses what to record; when to record; how to record). But otherwise, there is always an author, and the only relevant criteria is originality (and it seems that the mere fact that someone chose the subject to be filmed, switches from one camera to another, or zooms/pans to focus on the person speaking is creative enough).
This is of course based on this document only, and if someone else has other references that might help, it's more than welcome. –Tryphon 16:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Security cameras and the like are pretty clearly without originality. I'm not so quick to assume that "passport size pictures from automatic machines" are without copyright. Under a kerfuffle (on en.WP) about the copyright of German WWII pictures, there was an interesting question as to whether routine mug shots had any creative input and hence copyright at all. However, novelty machines in places like the mall are activated by customers frequently with the intent of producing unique distinctive pictures (and according to popular culture, usually violating COM:NUDE) that have significant originality and creativity, and they are the ones running the machine. I also have to agree with Tryphon here; in the case of the images that generated the question, they were almost certainly recorded and it's clear from the flickr stream that someone was either moving the camera or switching cameras.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Until I read the above discussion I did not realise that surveillance video captures were not subject to copyright, so on that basis I uploaded a short series of El Gouna beach webcam captures. ELG webcam record of 2008 TC3 frame 0005.png is one showing the airburst flash from 2008 TC3. I marked them PD-ineligible, does this look Ok? 84user (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

For unusual types of PD you may use {{PD-because}} and include the rationale. I added it on the description page of your upload, if you like it you may delete the {{PD-ineligible}} tag. Sv1xv (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now replaced the {{PD-ineligible}} tag in each of my uploads. -84user (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to the part about having to fixate a work to create copyright: I think your interpretation of "fixate" is not broad enough. Fixation in a tangible medium already happens at the moment that someone is holding a camera and displaying the image on a screen; there is no need to record it. The image is already fixated on the screen, even though only for a short moment of time. There is no need to create a lasting fixation to create copyright, in my interpretation. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. copyright law § 101 gives a precise definition of "fixed" in this context:
"A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission."
So it seems that without a somewhat "permanent" recording, there cannot be any copyright (§ 102: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression [...]). –Tryphon 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory permissions

File:Bohnacker luftbild werk d.jpg: User:Element-System uploaded this with GFDL and multiple versions of cc-by-sa, but also wrote "Nur für die Wikimedia Foundation" ("Only for the Wikimedia Foundation"). What should we do with that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

After we give enough time to respond--does he have an email address, or an account on other Wikimedia wikis, to contact him through?--we delete it. Given that the uploader is the copyright holder, I'd give him a little longer. Try dropping him a message at [3], since your German is way better than mine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've now done that. Given that he's ignored previous efforts at contact, that doesn't seem very promising, though. - Jmabel ! talk 05:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This user is not active, perhaps he does not visit his talk page at all, so I wouldn't expect a response soon. This image is used in articles about this company on en-wiki and de-wiki, so it could be possible to contact him on de-wiki. BTW, his only other uploads are two logos of this company, claiming authorship under GFDL/CC but actually {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}}. Sv1xv (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates {{PD-AR-Photo}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}

Hello, I need support from people who knows a lot about US Copyrights. The pictures using the tag {{PD-AR-Photo}} are those published more than 20 years ago and older than 25 years ago. According to the copyright law of Argentina these pictures are public domain, but we will need to consider the photos for which the copyright was active on January 1st, 1996. This means that for the photos taken on January 1st, 1971 and later, the copyright was still active. I know the copyrights in USA changed on 1978, but I do not know the details. Can someone prepare a table with dates so I can properly tag the photos that have the template {{PD-AR-Photo}} with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} also? Thanks in advance and best regards, Alpertron (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You basically have the date right already. The 1978 U.S. changes are pretty much irrelevant -- works prior to that expire 95 years after publication; works created after that (by individuals) expire 70 years after the author's death. Neither of those will happen for a long long time, so the difference is currently ignorable for you. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
So it is safe to tag all photos from 1971 to 1983 with the tag {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Is that right? Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
From the sounds of it, yes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Painting reproduction

I uploaded an image of a clearly PD painting (author died in 1897), but then noticed the source identified the image as a "reproduction." I don't see any evidence of originality in the the reproduction, and the term "reproduction" itself seems to be a disclaimer of originality. Does this qualify as {{PD-Art}}, is it PD under something else, or is it not PD? Mtsmallwood (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Top note

Note: The first note from Tryphon comes from my talk page. I moved it here to consolidate discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, why do you insist on adding this summary at the top of the page, instead of discussing it first? On what do you base the assertion that Commons recommends the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} or {{Cc-by-3.0}}?
This page is supposed to give detailed information about licenses for all kinds of works in a lot of different legislations, and I don't think this kind of over-simplified statement is helpful. In any case, please bring it to the talk page first, and you'll see if there really is a consensus for this statement. –Tryphon 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is linked from various upload forms, and many people coming here want to upload their own works without reading this huge article. Is there anything untrue in this revision of the note?:
Note: To summarize, for uploading your own work the Commons recommends the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} or {{Cc-by-3.0}} Creative Commons (CC) free licenses. For more info see the license overview pages at CreativeCommons.org site: [4] [5]. The Commons does not accept the other 4 CC licenses.
An objection to a previous version of the note was this edit summary: "it is still overbroad and a large change. Discussion may be good. I don't think Commons prefers cc-by-sa over, say, cc-by or PD-self."
I was bold, and clarified the note to recommend both licenses (cc-by-sa and cc-by) instead of just cc-by-sa. I was under the impression that the Commons preferred cc-by-sa. But maybe I was incorrect. I am fairly sure PD-self is not recommended. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
First of all, it would be much better to put this kind of recommendation on MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork directly, as it's only applicable to own work (also note that in the drop-down menu, cc-by-sa-3.0/GFDL is already marked as recommended). As I said, COM:L is supposed to be a resource for all kind of licensing situations, and putting an over-simplified answer on top will just result in less users taking the time to actually find the correct information. That's for the location.
As of the content, I don't know why you think {{PD-self}} is not recommended. It's a perfectly good license (how much more free can it get?) and I don't see why we should dissuade people from using it. –Tryphon 15:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Putting the recommendation note (in any form) at MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork is fine by me. Put in whatever the current recommendation is. What exactly is the current recommendation? You are an admin. Can you put the info there?

PD-self is not recommended at MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork. I don't know the reasons, but I suspect it is because of the problems that can happen when people try to upload other people's works as public domain at the from somewhere else upload form linked from Commons:Upload.

In the end we still have to find the source of an image in order to be sure that the creator really put it in the public domain. So it is probably better in the long run that we encourage attributed image licenses at MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork. This way when people copy the Commons images and try to use them as free images, they also remember to include attribution. Image users may not see the need for attribution if the image is in public domain. So the image gets passed on in a confusing way.

cc-by-sa-3.0/GFDL recommendation has been there a long time at MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork, and I believe it is out of date since Wikipedia has been migrating to cc-by-sa, I believe. Why recommend GFDL anymore if it is no longer needed at Wikipedia?

So the recommendations at MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork need to be clarified since it is confusing both uploaders and us. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

One more reason not to recommend PD-self is that its legal status is unclear in some (many?) countries, e.g. Sweden and Finland. You are not allowed to give up your rights altogether here, only for a well definied use of the media. I think this is unproblematic in most cases (as a malicious author will have a hard time explaining why he used the PD-tag if he didn't like people using the work according to it), but not necessarily in all of them (somebody claiming he was forced to by an employer or greedy relatives getting the right to defend the rights). --LPfi (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This is correct, in most EU countries the moral rights cannot be given up or transferred. Sv1xv (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the template clearly says that in case it is not possible to give up all rights, then it should be understood as giving up all rights to the full extent permitted by law (which is quite obvious actually, and it is true for any license; no one should reuse content from Commons without making sure that they comply with the peculiarities of their jurisdiction). –Tryphon 11:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think uploaders want to know what is recommended. We are not telling them that they can't use PD-self. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You may give up it to some extent, if you define to what extent and the extent is "clearly limited". Thus, as you do not define the extent, you do not give up the rights to the extent permitted and therefore the statement is false. I think it should be acompanied with some kind of good clarification. (Other licenses are of course also binding only to the extent permitted by law, but free licenses seldom give the impression of allowing something that is not allowed or of disallowing something that has to be allowed – or at least they should not.) --LPfi (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(Moved the following comment from my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC) )

Revision of COM:L. The Commons community indeed prefers CC-BY/CC-BY-SA as licenses for own works. However, before it is translated into official Commons policy and is displayed on COM:L, we must agree on a suitable text, which covers a number of secondary issues. Please discuss it first on the talk page and don't change the policy page. Thank you. Sv1xv (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tryphon that it would be better if a recommendation summary were on MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork. I no longer see the need for a recommendation summary to be placed here at COM:L. What suitable text would you like at MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork? You are an admin, and can add it there. Be bold! Others can revise it later. I may not have much time to participate much more here. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Images with unknown author

According to the Hungarian Copyright Act of 1999 Article 31 section (3), In case the person of the author is unknown, the term of protection shall be seventy years and shall be counted from the first day of the year following the first disclosure of the work. Can such images (i.e. first published in Hungary more than 70 years ago and the author cannot be determined - which is typical for old photographs people have about their ancestors) be uploaded to Commons? They are PD in the country of origin, but I don't know about the US. --Tgr (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many people just claim "author unknown" without checking. You'd need a reliable source stating that the author is indeed unknown generally, not just to the uploader. Lupo 07:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said, this typically comes up with photographs about (not particularly famous) dead people owned by a descendant who has no idea when or how the photo was made. Also applies to photos kept by archives, without any record of the author. I agree the uploader should have to show some proof. The question is, can such images be hosted on Commons at all? Even if it is clear that no one knows the author and thus it is PD in Hungary, legal status in US is a question (for me at least). --Tgr (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at US protection terms for foreign works (the pain!). If I interpret correctly:

  • PD if it was published before 1909
  • probably PD if published between 1909-1922, in English (does that apply to a photograph with no text?)
  • counts as unpublished if published between 1909-1922 in another language.
  • PD if published between 1923-1989 without (C), and it was public domain in the country of origin on 1996-01-01.

Based on that, for works where the country of origin is Hungary, the work was published more than 70 years ago (which currently means 1938 or earlier), US formalities (such as formal notice, registration and depositing a copy in the Copyright Office) were not followed and the author can not be determined:

  • if the work was published before 1909 or between 1923-1925 (before 1996 minus 70), it is PD in US and HU and thus usable on Commons.
  • same goes if the work was published between 1909-1922 and it was written in English.
  • if the work was published between 1909-1922 in a foreign language, it counts as unpublished. I'm not sure what that actually means.
  • if the work was published between 1926-1938, it depends. pma 70 protection time was only made retroactive in Hungary in 1999, so the copyright law in effect at the time of the work's creation does count. I have to look into the details but in many cases that could be as short as 15 years.

If the work was not published at all (which is the case with the photograph in question), current US rules say 120 years from creation of the work. However, Hungarian law says the one publishing it (which is the uploader on Commons) gets 25 years copyright (except the moral rights). If US law respects that (which I suppose it should because of Berne), the uploader could put it under CC.

Can somebody check if the above is correct, and fill in the gaps? See also en:Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Non-US unpublished works. --Tgr (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, if it was published before 1923 anywhere, it is PD in the U.S. -- pretty sure the 1909-1922 stuff is surrounding one particular, somewhat twisted court case which may not be all that precedent-setting. Don't sweat that really. You can also look at Hirtle's chart. After that, you are mostly looking at the URAA restorations -- if restored, it is copyrighted for 95 years after publication (i.e. still copyrighted). For that, it matters what the copyright law in Hungary was on January 1, 1996. If the 1999 law retroactively extended copyright terms, that did not affect URAA restorations in the United States; that would only affect Hungary. If Hungrary retroactively restored copyrights before 1996, those would apply. In looking, I think Hungary extended its term from 50 to 70 years in 1994, which (other than sound recordings more than 20 years old at that point) I think was retroactive. If not, and only the 1999 law was retroactive, it gets far more interesting -- but references would be good. If 1994 was the main retroactive law, it would sound like works first published 1926-1938 were still copyrighted in Hungary in 1996 and thus had their U.S. copyrights restored. If unpublished until recently, I think the 120-year-from-creation U.S. term would apply. And no, any 25-year publication right in Hungary would not be recognized in the U.S. (though Commons probably would). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes before 1999 were indeed not retroactive; compare Article 29 of the 1994 law and Article 108 of the 1999 law. (I have no English text for the former, you can read here the full text of the 1969 law as amended by the 1994 act, but that's not very helpful either, so random quote from google: Hungarian legislation implemented changes in copyright law in 1994 to comply with European Directive 93/98. This lengthened the protection period to 70 years post-mortem auctoris for copyright and up to 50 years from the year of transmission to the public, or first distribution of the work, for related rights. The only aspect in which harmonisation with the Directive proved to be missing was the lack of copyright and neighbouring right protection with respect to works and performances for which protection had already lapsed at the time of the modifications. [6]) Article 15 of the 1969 law says length of protection is 50 years from publication if the author is unknown. So it seems anything published before 1946 by an unknown author is public domain in the US. --Tgr (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I created a template: {{PD-HU-unknown}}. Thanks for the help! --Tgr (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The EU directives were supposed to be made retroactive, but it does appear the 1994 law (which went into effect on Jan 1, 1995) did extend the term of anything still under copyright, but did not restore expired copyrights. The 1999 law explicitly mentions that its term does apply to all works which had expired before the 1994 law went into force, i.e. it restored expired copyrights, meaning it appears that did not happen in 1995. If that is true... works where the author died in 1944 or before (50 pma terms at the time), or "unknown" (the law did say that) works from 1944 or before, would indeed appear to not be restored by the URAA (guessing that they expired at the end of 1994, and the law that year went into effect at the beginning of 1995, so they did expire first). Maybe I'm wrong and it's 1943. The dividing line is not 1946 though because those terms were extended by the 1994 law and so were still not PD in 1996, and the URAA did apply to those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hungary did not become member of the EU until 2004. The 1999 law says expressly that it aims to implement the relevant EU directives, the 1994 law doesn't say anything like that.

The 1994 law went into effect on 1 July, 1994 (at least that's what the law itself says), so that means works with unkown author published in 1943 and earlier, and works whose author died 1943 or earlier (these went into PD 1 Jan, 1944) are PD in the US. The latter are not PD in Hungary though, so works with unknown author published first in Hungary before 1943 and more than 70 years ago (currently that means before 1939) seems to be the condition for being eligible for Commons. --Tgr (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. You said above Hungarian legislation implemented changes in copyright law in 1994 to comply with European Directive 93/98, and that directive was supposed to be retroactive at least for EU countries. The English link you gave above has "Entry into force (of last amending Law): January 1, 1995" but I missed that that was a different 1994 amendment -- the substantial 1994 law was indeed in force from July 1, 1994, so 1943 is the last year (and yes, those have now been restored in Hungary, but not in the U.S.). This all basically means that {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} does not apply for Hungarian works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest for unpublished images with an unknown author (protected for 70 years in Hungary, 120 years in the US)? Upload to Commons with a warning similar to {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} or upload locally and claim fair use? --Tgr (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with copyright tag

I uploaded this image to commons File:Shinkansen-500-kyoto.jpg from wikipeia but i got 5 license tags instead of the 1 on wikipedia and i dont know what to do, i think it is migration related.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it, however the image is a copyvio... Seems not to be so, I though it was from http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00450/bullettrains.htm but the site gives the source as wikipedia...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Does URAA apply to Saudi Arabia?

Well does URAA apply to Saudi Arabia? {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} doesn't mention the URAA and says that photographs are protected for 25 Hijri years after publication. Does this apply here too? Cause I wanted to reformat it to be like {{PD Egypt}}.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

According to w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, it does apply but using August 2, 2004 as the URAA date (I guess Saudi Arabia joined the Berne Convention then?). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Saudi Arabia didn't have copyright before this date so the copyright law is retroactive. That's why the URAA gets activated a year later I guess. There is something that I find a bit weird, under article 4 ( Works excluded from protection: ) it says "What is published in newspapers, magazines and periodicals, or broadcasted in daily news or news-like events." So are images from newspaper ineligible of copyright? Take a look at http://www.agip.com/country_service.aspx?country_key=120&service_key=C&SubService_Order=3&lang=en --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Most copyright legislations exclude "news items", meaning the information published as news. but not the expression of the actual texts and images. It seems likely that the above citation refers to the same, but has been phrased too generally in the translation from the arabic original. --Latebird (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia reformed template

I Just improved {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} but wanted to know if this would be the best way to display such a template. And I'm not sure about the URAA date. Is it the WTO one or from the Berne?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please change "Copyright has expired in Egypt if..." with "Copyright has expired in Saudi Arabia if...". Sv1xv (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

image of John MacArthur

The file:John-2.jpg does not appear to have the correct licensing. Unless the uploader is on staff at Grace to You, it is unlikely they have the authority to release this image into the public domain. Surely this image is replaceable, as John MacArthur is a fairly public individual.

I tagged with {{no permission since}}. Wknight94 talk 18:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A deletion discussion that may be of interest to those following this page

Commons:Deletion_requests/kentin's_old_photos: a user requesting deletion of a large number of his/her own images because they were taken in places where commercial photography is not allowed. I imagine we should delete these as a courtesy to that user, but someone who understands the issues better than me should probably weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be reuploaded with a bot under another name. Yann (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. That would remove the liability from the uploader but allow us to retain the images. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I commented there. How would File:NHK shibuya.jpg be a problem? It was taken from the middle of a highway - how could that be restricted? Wknight94 talk 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Typeface sample

Does Commons:Licensing#Fonts refer to the entire font or also to typeface samples (also of non-free fonts)? And if typeface samples are allowed on Commons, up to how many characters (approx.) are permitted? Raphael (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It refers to the entire font. There is no legal prohibition against printing out vector fonts at large scales and then tracing them into the computer and selling them as a new font, and several companies do so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought so but I wasn’t sure. So Schriftartenvergleich.pdf shouldn’t be a problem (see also my talk page)? Best regards, Raphael (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
But the PDF includes the fonts as vectors, so it copies the "computer code" part of the font. That's not permissible, even for a few characters. To be safe, these should be done as PNGs so that it's clear that we're not copying the copyrightable portion of the font.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
All right – I will convert the concearning file into a PNG file. A last question: Why is this and other SVG typeface samples allowed? They also include the characters as vectors. Thank you very much for your help, Raphael (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Bitmap files are definitely safer for this, but saying the PDF is "not permissable" isn't necessarily true. I think U.S. court cases are moving towards the position which is explicitly in UK law -- uses of fonts (even the outlines) are not copyright violations unless actually used to make another, competing font. It would be best though to make sure there is only outline data and no embedded fonts, and SVG is much preferred anyways. And if bitmaps serve the purpose, that is indeed safer, especially for a font sample which intentionally shows and uses all the characters. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I will try to remove the fonts that are completely embedded in the file as soon as I am back at home – but note that only free fonts are completely embedded (see my talk page); all non-free fonts are not completely embedded! Otherwise I will convert the PDF file into a PNG file. Raphael (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about freely-licensed fonts. Converting everything to outlines is definitely "lighter gray" than partially embedded fonts (only pure bitmaps have had court decisions which say they are definitely not copyrightable, so most anything else isn't 100% certain), which in turn is much better than completely embedded fonts. Though I'm sure there are lots of those on Commons now. If you are planning to use this in articles, a pure-outline SVG will look the best though. On the other hand, you would probably need one file per font. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will ask how to convert the completely embedded fonts to outlines partially embedded fonts. I’m not planning to use this file in any article – the file will just be used for a typographical font review. Thanks for your help, Raphael (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Add.: If this will not work, I will convert the file to a PNG file (outlines; the most saver way). Raphael (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This PDF gives a hint, if using Distiller, I guess -- set "Subset fonts less than XXX%" to 100% (i.e. subset all of them). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I’m not using Distiller because I’m a GNU/Linux user … :) I created the concearning PDF file with OpenOffice.org. Nevertheless thanks for the link. Raphael (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably OpenOffice.org knows whether a font is proprietary or not because the completely embedded fonts are only free fonts (see my talk page). Raphael (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
After about a week being off-line because of an illness I just wanted to correct the license – unfortunately the file now has been deleted in the meantime … Raphael Frey (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
If a no-permission tag is left on a file, admins will generally delete it eventually, and probably won't spend much time investigating the issues. Add a new request at Commons:Undeletion requests. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That might well be so. I’ve contacted the admin that has deleted the file. Raphael Frey (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Roy Erickson photos

Leonard Nimoy says "I approve all uploads of Roy Erickson photographs."[1]

The State Library and Archives of Florida have uploaded to Flickr Commons the collection of Roy Erickson, a Ft Lauderdale photographer and marked it as "no known copyright restrictions". His collection features a treasure trove of celebrity photos which would be very useful for respective articles in Wikipedia. However after a little research I came upon this which states:

"In July of this year, a truckload of prints and negatives were dropped off at the State Archives by the neighbors

of a deceased Ft. Lauderdale photographer, Roy Erickson. When Erickson’s family attempted to throw his photographic collection away, neighbors convinced them that the images might have historical significance. The images, which included no identifications, were delivered to the Archives in dirty, deteriorating boxes. After months of research and review by staff, approximately 1,000 images have been identified, considered to have historical value, and added to

the Archives’ Photographic Collection."

Can we assume that the photos are now the property of the State Archives, which has the authority to release them as "no copyright" or does the copyright from X years from death of author still stand? --Ferengi (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The w:Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Florida from suits here, but as far as I can tell, any photographs not previously published are copyrighted by the estate of Roy Erickson until 1/1/2076. I know of no case where transfer of physical property would imply transfer of copyright. There's two solutions here: the fliker page says "a neighbor of the Erickson family told the State Archives of Florida about the assortment of photos that the family was considering tossing out. The family agreed to donate the photos, and the State Archives gladly accepted the collection of more than 2,000 images, many of which are still being identified", so perhaps copyright was included, in which case the State Archives should be willing to say so unambiguously. If not, the family could be talked to and convinced to license the pictures under a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I imagine that Erickson's heirs transferred their copyrights to the Archives as part of the process, but you'd have to ask the Archives to verify that. In the meantime, just use {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} and get an admin to do a flickr license review. That's enough due diligence on our part. Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is the confirmation we can use them: "The State Archives of Florida's images featured on The Commons on Flickr have no known copyright restrictions. Acquisitions documentation transferring all rights to the Archives is obtained from the donor at the time of the transfer."[7] Upload away! Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the Leonard Nimoy picture :) Enjoy. Kaldari (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already uploaded photos for George Peppard, Trini Lopez and Buffalo Bob Smith, for whom we didn't have any free photos and added them to the respective Wikipedia articles. More to come as time allows. --Ferengi (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a special tag is needed to inform overzealous users in the future about the copyright status of these images. Otherwise they may be submitted for deletion as "no permission". Sv1xv (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
LPfi added a very nice Permissions explanation to File:Leonard_Nimoy_1972.jpg. I would suggest copying that one into the others as well. Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I created this special template: {{Roy Erickson collection}}. What do you think about it ? Sv1xv (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally I prefer keeping the permissions explanation in the permissions field and the template tag in the licensing section, but others may not. Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Change my licensing, it is possible?

I wish to change licences for few my contributions. From {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} or {{self|GFDL}} to {{PD-self}} now. It is possible? --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As long as the new license is more permissive that the old one, I don't see any issue. Yann (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think it would be a problem since PD is more permissive than GFDL or CC-by-sa. Kaldari (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This should be okay, but be aware that (1) you cannot change it back again and (2) you should leave a notice that the file was licensed differently until such-and-such date, so that re-users are not suspected of copyfraud because of using the older license. --rimshottalk 17:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A license question

Shortly after WW2 the Norwegian authorities published a huge four volume set of books containing short biographies of Norwegians that had died during the war of some war-related reason (Våre falne). Most biographies include a small photo, about the same size as in a passport. The photos are of very variable quality. No rights owners are mentioned.

I have scanned a dozen or so of these pics for use in articles about people having received the Norwegian War Cross, but I am uncertain of the licensing. This template has been suggested. I am not sure where the unknown author clause in it comes from. But anyway: These people will in general have been somewhere between 20 and 55 years old during the war, and the pics are probably taken before 1940. We may suppose that the photographers in average was 30 years old when taking the photo, that is they are probably born some time around turn of the century. It seems fair to suppose that the photographers in most cases have been dead for 15 years now.

Then there is the extra US clause at the bottom. It states that the pics should have been published before Jan 1st, 1946. What does "publish" mean here? The books were not published until around 1950, but the pictures of course are older, as the motives died during the war.

Is it OK to upload these photos and use the above template? Regards, --GAD (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Publish here basically means to make available to the general public. If they were published in a book prior to 1946 that you could buy out of a bookstore or catalog, then they're fine. If copies were only made for a few family members, then they weren't published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the term "publish" there is a mistake. The 1946 part is there because works still copyrighted in their source country as of 1996 had their U.S. copyrights restored (meaning if they were published after 1923 then the U.S. copyright is still valid). The Norway terms use creation however, so Norwegian photos created in 1945 or earlier were public domain in Norway on the URAA date (Jan 1, 1996 for most countries), and therefore the U.S. copyrights would not be restored -- unless the author had died in 1981 or later, in which case the Norwegian copyright lasted longer. So, the status may be dependent on knowing the photographer; if the original books don't credit the photographers however, they probably are indeed "unknown" and that part wouldn't matter, and the photos would seem to be PD in both Norway and the U.S., and can be uploaded. (It really helps to have the original sources in this case; claiming "unknown" on a random internet photo usually can't be done.) You can read w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights if you want to see the gorier details on the URAA stuff. Short answer -- the {{PD-Norway50}} template would seem to be correct for these pictures. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What about this restriction?

Check out the {{copyrighted free use provided that}} on File:Lithophane atara larva.jpg. Rocket000 (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange requirement... it has nothing to do with copyright. But anyway, material from this site cannot be used commercially: Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada's copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). [8]Tryphon 05:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Caratsch.jpg

Hi. I'd like to get some feedback on this image. The original uploader, Stahlkocher, an admin on de.wiki, says that when he uploaded the image three and a half years ago it was marked PD-US, as a result of lacking a copyright tag when it was published first in the US. The source page now shows no sign of anything which could verify that license. Given the image was uploaded so long ago there is a strong chance that DB have changed their image display system in the interim. I would not be surprised if it is PD, as I have seen it in many different forms in many different places; it seems to be the most common picture of him. Is it safe to assume that it is PD, or does the lack of information presently on the source page mean it is unusable? Thanks, Apterygial (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(Comment I made at w:WP:Media copyright questions:) I'm reading something contradictory in your summary. It may be I'm missing something. As I understand it, no one made a claim that Daimler Benz affirmatively placed it in the public domain. Stahlkocher is not saying that the DB site included a license. What he's saying is that it was published in the United States without copyright notice, during a time when copyright notice was required (i.e., pre-1989).
That's probably true, but when the US allowed for "restored" copyright in 1995, a work of foreign origin that had lost U.S. copyright status due to publication without notice would have become covered by US copyright, provided it was covered by copyright in its country of origin. I don't know the facts of this photo, but I would be unsurprised if it fell into this category of works. TJRC (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Any more opinions? Apterygial (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
That is basically right. Foreign copyrights were restored in the U.S. in 1996 per the URAA, provided they were still copyrighted in their source country at the time. I think the only exception was if a work was properly registered in the U.S. originally, and then not renewed, but basically most of the foreign published-without-a-notice images had their copyright restored. In this case, it appears it came from a postcard at the time, and that page says there is a photographer's mark "Lazi" at the bottom right (which the Daimler version uploaded here conveniently crops out). That is presumably Adolf Lazi (1884-1955), which would mean it would be copyrighted in germany until 2026, and the U.S. until 2034. It was probably public domain in both Germany and the U.S. at one time, but copyright has almost certainly been restored in both countries. And it is highly doubtful that Daimler Benz owns the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The other exception is if it was simultaneously published in the U.S. or first published in the U.S. without proper copyright registration. Since this information does not appear to be available, then we must err on the side of caution and assume this work is not public domain. -Nard the Bard 18:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Requirement of being PD in the US

Is the line about requiring PD in the US on COM:L going to be deleted, or are we going to start enforcing it? It's currently ignored in Deletion Reviews, and as long as that goes on, this page should not claim that it matters to us.

The URAA is a red herring here; not only is it the law, but nobody is actually checking to make sure it matters. Take, say, File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg; to know whether the URAA restored copyright to it or whether it was always under copyright would require knowing when it was first published and where and how, and then checking the physical volumes of the copyright registrations (not the online ones, as they don't include the painting registrations or renewals) to make sure it wasn't properly registered and renewed. No one gave publication information or claimed to do this complex process.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Personally, I would like that this claim of URAA restoration to be validated by a professional lawyer before to be implemented here. Unless we do that, I think that the current status quo is fine. Files can be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} (although I won't do it myself, I don't see the point) and dealed with when appropriate.
If we decide to delete these files, I think we also need to find an alternative storage possibility. Wikilivres is ready to host these files under Canadian copyright law. Yann (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Can't the WMF ask (pay) a professional lawyer to analyse the situation? How to ask them? Is it possible for the Wikipedias to use files directly from Wikilivres? I would personally rather like a server within the European Union operating under "European" law. Doesn't WMF already have servers in the Netherlands? Nillerdk (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The first thing would be to get an estimate, to know if it is worth the spending. Currently the Wikipedias cannot use Wikilivres directly, but I think that could be changed. Canadian law is much less strict than European law, so it would allow more possibilities. WMF has said that it will never host content in Europe. Yann (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it is worth spending because now we don't really know, if anonymous and published EU-works created between 1926 and 1939 are acceptable here. Those works are expired in Europe (70 years after creation), but probably got renewed with URAA (now 95 years protection I think). Nillerdk (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, we haven't even checked whether it needed a URAA restoration. If there's reason to pay a lawyer to explain the clear simple text of the US law (see US Code, Title 17, Section 104A and the Copyright Office explanation of the URAA), I'm not sure why we should accept blindly that the law in the UK is life+70; we should have a lawyer explain that to us in the context of this work. Furthermore, in the case of this and other works, how well do we really know the death dates of the author, who the author actually is and when it was painted? Not to mention when it was first published; if it was first published after 2002, it is PD, and if it was published earlier, the publication date is necessary for us to figure out whether it was always properly copyrighted in the US. Asking a lawyer about the URAA in this case is premature and self-serving; we haven't even begun to do the basic verification here of copyright status.
In any case, if the status quo is fine, then that's what COM:L should say. It shouldn't say that we require a work to be PD in the US when it's not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
A court said that URAA is invalid, so your rethoric is here quite shaky. Nothing is certain as you pretend to be. It could be that these files are in the public domain in USA. We have to wait to be really sure one way or another. Yann (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that is true about the URAA... I think the court just said that the protection for people already using works which got restored ("reliance parties") should be better. The Berne Convention required the restorations, but I think the court basically said that the law went beyond those requirements, to the point they violated the constitution. The one hope (which I have never seen suggested, so don't hope too much) is that the restored works have a rule of the shorter term applied to them -- that is also quite allowed by Berne (and would solve the issue at hand). The situation is a bit nebulous to be sure -- uploading such works is probably discouraged, but not many people want to hunt down such images and make mass deletions, especially when there is at least *some* question on their legal status. But in all probability, those will still be considered copyrighted in the U.S. This is a matter of policy, to a point (such works are PD and "free" in much of the world) and opinions have differed quite a bit in the past. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
And again, it doesn't matter what that court says, until we show that it needed a URAA restoration; it could be under copyright under the "traditional contours" of American copyright law. Nobody has given a publication date or publication source, nor checked the copyright renewals for paintings. Furthermore, the court case did not say that the URAA was invalid; it said that "Accordingly—to the extent Section 514 suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain—Section 514 is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the Government’s interest."[9] Given that we aren't a reliance party, it's not relevant to us.
In any case, if we're going to work on the assumption that we do follow the US copyright law but we consider the URAA invalid, we first need to document that, and secondly, we need to make sure that the works we use were not filed and renewed for US copyright in a way that would make the URAA irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We can't use Wikilivres, because the Foundation is located in the United States, so content served trough (not only hosted on) their servers should adhere to Federal and Florida law. As such wikipedia pages cannot use Wikilivres, though that is no reason not to move the material there of course. Also, since 2006 there have been proposed laws floating around congress to open up "orphaned works" (unknown author or unknown copyright registration status). Several of these images would likely fall into that category. Though currently illegal, it is highly doubtful the foundation would ever get sued for these. Still consultation with Mike Godwin would be required. TheDJ (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably PD, dubious claim of "own work"

Almost certainly PD-old, but uploader made very dubious claim of "own work". These are his only uploads, or at least the only ones that haven't been deleted. Do we just turn these into PD-old, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When someone uploads images with no information at all, and doesn't use them on wikis so we don't even get a hint of what the image is about... they are pretty much unusable since nobody can know what they are. Luckily, the images have captions so someone who can read Dutch (or Latin) may have a fighting chance of figuring these out. Anyways, after some searching, the second one is apparently related to w:William III of England (who was also a Dutch stadtholder), and it is described at the end of the Description section of this archive.org book overview. However, I can't see a copy of the actual illustration in their scans. It seems to be signed "Pet. Schenk exc. Amstelod", which apparently was Pieter/Petrus Schenk, and it may have been part of a series from about 1700.[10] The first one seems similar (captions in Dutch at the bottom left, and Latin on the the bottom right), and the styling seems similar to File:Potsdam Stadtschloss um 1720.jpg which is by the same person, so that one likely is by him too. So yes, PD-Old for sure (PD-Art may be better). If Dutch speakers could translate the captions that would be good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I changed the license to {{PD-Art}}. Yann (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I filled in some info from sources I found -- which aren't the direct sources, but they provide information at least, and prove PD status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Good work, Carl. I shall PD-review them to avoid complications in the future. Sv1xv (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I added some annotations to some of these images. TheDJ (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Rudolf Höß

May i upload these pictures to the Wikimedia? http://www.scrapbookpages.com/AuschwitzScrapbook/HimmlerAndHoess.jpg http://www.scrapbookpages.com/AuschwitzScrapbook/HoessCaptured.jpg

I saw the pictures in Laurence Rees - Auschwitz, but i don't know if anybody has the copyright for these pictures. --Bukephalos (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC) If you have no real information on an image don't upload it to commons, upload to wikipedia as fair use. Commons is for free works and if you don't know, then you can't claim it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple image combination subject to new copyright?

Hi everyone, I just stumbled upon an image, where a user just combined three PD images and then claimed a new copyright for the derivative work. IMHO such a combination is ineligible and does not create a new copyright, so the derivative image would be in the PD. Opinions? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is still a public domain image. You can't claim copyright for pasting three pictures next to each other! Sv1xv (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly a misuse of the license. Public Domain images cannot be re licensed. If it is a derivative work only the deviation can be copyrighted and the deviation must be far greater than the work done here.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
They could be claiming it as a "collective work", on the selection and arrangement. However the three images were already uploaded as a set and the arrangement is not creative. I think it's PD too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I have now changed the licensing accordingly. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mosaics and other icons in interior of a Greek Orthodox Church

Any sense of whether there are copyright issues with photos of the mosaics and other icons in interior of a Greek Orthodox Church in the U.S.? Church dates from 1962, and some of the mosaics are more recent, but they are entirely conventional: the form doesn't really allow for any significant originality. I'm suspecting that the answer is that those that are physically part of the building are OK, any that are simply part of the iconostasis are not, but I'd be interested in others' thoughts on this.

I've uploaded some examples on Flickr — http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/sets/72157622345844059/ — if that is any help in sorting out the issues. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are not entirely conventional. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Even if the mosaics and/or murals in Eastern Orthodox churches follow a certain well established pattern, there is still much freedom for creativity by each artist. Sv1xv (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Definitely. But, in the 1960s they would have needed a copyright notice, right? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Only if they were published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Before 1978, when the definition of publication changed, I would think they would be unless maybe the church took steps to prevent photography (and if the windows were visible from the outside, not even sure that would matter). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, guess these will stay on Flickr. That's why I asked. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl's point is interesting (though not all of them are that old: see en:St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church (Seattle)#Iconography). I believe that the case of a mosaic would be like a sculpture: if your didn't put that c-in-circle on it (or some equivalent) it may well not have been copyrighted in that era. Also possibly involved: many of these works (and precisely the least narrowly conventional) are permanent parts of the building.

If people think some of these are OK for Commons, I'd gladly have them here in Category:St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church (Seattle). They're now all up on Flickr, so anyone can bring them over. (Also, I know this isn't a Commons concern, but I'd be interested if anyone thinks one or more might be appropriate on en-wiki on a fair use basis to illustrate the article on the church.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Only if the article needs such an image to illustrate a passage about the unique design of the mosaics. Powers (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Works by the US Government

Apropos http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Works_by_the_US_Government :

1) "The United States Army Institute of Heraldry— the official custodian of ALL United States governmental images" is obviously wrong. Boldly replacing with "The United States Army Institute of Heraldry— the official custodian of all such images" which a quick check of its sources suggests is more accurate, though actually, it "prescribes the Department of the Army and the Air Force policy" only! --Elvey (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

2) I noticed the above when coming here for a different reason. I found a trove of images here on Flickr that are official White House photographs. Anyone know of any reason not to ignore the "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way" order as, well, contrary to US law? I believe the law described in PD-USGov applies, much as the law described in PD-FLGov applied in the Microdecisions case (read the template and its sources! See this discussion for related precedent). Use in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, or promotions that DOES NOT in any way suggest approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House, such as here, is perfectly legal, IMO. As the photographs are 'Official', that makes them works of the Federal government itself, hence PD, hence uploadable here as I see it. en:Zahir Tanin, for example, could really use a better photo. --Elvey (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just found this, which confirms the legal reasoning as grounded: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/white-house-photos . Time to start uploading. --Elvey (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a better URL for accessing the collection: http://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos/sets/72157622444106644/ Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll upload all of them in a minute here. Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do when your script starts working again.--Elvey (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A current Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miyuki Hatoyama Michelle Obama Yukio Hatoyama and Barack Obama 20090923.jpg has many !votes to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and they're all misguided. But that's life; it's clear that most people believe in the wrong god, no matter which god you believe is the real one.

The evidence supporting applicability of PD-USGov is very similar to the very strong evidence and argumetn which back use of PD-FLGov on works that are clearly official works.--Elvey (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys should share your insights at the deletion discussion, otherwise they're not of much use in addressing the issue. Kaldari (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The deletion debates were all closed as Keep, so I'm going to upload the rest of them now. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

They've all been uploaded. Most of them need categories added for the specific leaders though. You can find them all under Category:Barack_Obama_with_national_leaders. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

70 years-- expire at end of year?

I seem to remember this being discussed repeatedly over the years, but couldn't find a link to earlier guideline discussion. My understanding of PD-Old & PD-Art for European works is that PD status starts on 1 January of the year following the 70th anniversary of the creator's death. I think the relevent phrase is "All periods of protection run until 31 December of the year in which they expire." per en:Copyright law of the European Union. This has come up again with reference to Alfons Mucha; I think his European works will become PD on 1 Jan 2010; others are challenging this saying they are PD now since the 70th anniversary of his death was in July. Thanks, Infrogmation (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyrights expire on December 31, irrespective of the actual date of death within the year. Works become free on Januart 1st of next year. Sv1xv (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Depending on the country. Some countries have exactly 70 (or other number) years after death, some countries on January 1st following 70 (or other number) years after the authors death. In Czech copyright the "period of duration of economic rights shall be calculated always from the first day of the year following the year in which the event decisive for its calculation occurred", so January 1, 2010 here.. --Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, works become free January 1 next year in the EU. See Article 8 of Directive 2006/116/EC. --Tgr (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tag for requesting a check

I came across File:GSFLX workflow.JPG, and it looks like fair use rather than public domain ("used frequently in promotional materials", and the uploader uploaded another file deleted for copyright reasons), but I'm not certain. Is there a tag that can ask someone else to check the copyright status, rather than assert that it's definitely a violation? AGrimm (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just submitted it for deletion with the following comments for others to decide. It looks very similar (the fifth panel is different) to this diagram embedded in http://www.454.com/products-solutions/how-it-works/index.asp copyright © 1996-2008 Roche Diagnostics Corporation. See Legal: Copyright The website of Roche and the information contained and referenced therein are for informational purposes only. Any reproduction, retransmission or other use is strictly prohibited. Request for permission to reproduce any information contained on this website should be addressed to the Roche Webmaster.
It may have been an image used in an earlier version of the workflow presentation found at http://www.454.com/products-solutions/multimedia-presentations.asp , the fifth panel can be seen about 90 secvonds into this Flash presentation, who knows? -84user (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:1-peso-s-a.jpg

Regarding this image of a banknote from Cuba:

  • What is the copyright status of banknoted issued in Cuba?
  • Is there an appropriate license tag?

Sv1xv (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that one :) Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Douros font license

From [11]: "In lieu of a licence: Fonts in this site are offered free for any use; they may be opened, edited, modified, regenerated, posted, packaged and redistributed."

These are OK for Commons, right? Any notion of the best license tag? -- Visviva (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-font}} would apply to any bitmap rendering of those fonts. The person offering these fonts for download may not be aware that scalable vector fonts are copyrightable. Nevertheless their intent that they be free of restriction is pretty clear. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Visviva (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question? (from Wikipedia talk:Upload/Uploadtext/en-ownwork)

I originally posted these questions on the above page. I recieved no response. I am now reposting them here.

"I used a wikipedia article to make a graph. I now have a few questions.

1) Is my work copywritable?

2) Does it automatically have a copyright?

3) Which copyright tag should I use when posting the image?

4) How would I get a copyright?

Thanks, Poker5463 Repeater 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Upload/Uploadtext/en-ownwork"

I know the signature didn't come out right. Please reply on my wikipedia page.

Thanks again, Poker5463 (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


CLOSED on wikipedia.

Copyright for photo like this?

Whether I can load photos of models like these?

My ask about possible to uploading my photos of model in scale 1:35 with as image part historical photo in low resolution.

Sets of models (kit) from plastic are on sale for children (too copyrighted), however assemblage and completion to historical conformity are my own work. Photos of my models can be retaken in far better qualiy.

-- George Chernilevsky talk 13:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue (the copyright status of models and the acceptance of their photos on Commons) has not been resolved conclusively. Commons:Image casebook#Models just redirects to Commons:Derivative works, where there is no specific information. I would not upload such a photo here, unless the policy is clarified. Sv1xv (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me you created the model (subject of the photos) in question. If your creation was your interpretation of the actual tank (and not an exact scale replica), you hold its copyrights (certain countries also award you a copyright based on your efforts). In that case, you can certainly upload photos of your work and license them accordingly. Do, however, read up carefully on what such an action would entail (for example, if you declare your work and photos to be in public domain, anyone can create replicas of your molds—albeit without a depth—and sell them without credit to you; CC licenses would have them credit you). If the model tank was not molded by you, then one would have to determine who is the creator of the molds and if he/she/they has/have the copyrights. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong License

This http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Malone.jpg file is under the wrong license. Can someone help me get the right one please? would really appreciate it.

4. COPYRIGHT LIMITATIONS

The State has made the content of certain pages of its Web sites available to the public. Anyone may view, copy, or distribute information found within these web pages (not including the design or layout of the pages) for personal or informational use without owing an obligation to the State if the documents are not modified in any respect, and unless otherwise stated on the particular materials or information to which a restriction on free use applies. The State makes no warranty, however, that the materials contained within these pages are free from copyright claims, or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. The State disclaims any liability for the improper or incorrect use of information obtained from its Web sites.

http://www.utah.gov/disclaimer.html

JoeJohnson2 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting that file because of the "Copyright © 2009 State of Utah - All rights reserved." notice on the bottom of http://governor.utah.gov/photos/Photos from 2007/09 - September/September 15/Karl Malone/. The disclaimer is too specific, and doesn't apply to any free licenses. It clearly has a non-derivative stipulation, which is a "no-no" for free licenses that are accepted on the Commons. Also, it mentions "personal or informational use", which implies non-commercial, another "no-no". It is clear that 3rd party re-use, modification, and possibly commercial use is not acceptable under the terms of the disclaimer, and thus it cannot be translated into a free license on the Commons. Sorry. Also, the copyright tag is incorrect. It was tagged as PD-USGov, which is for federal government work. This is a work of the State of Utah, and each state has their own copyright regulations for state created works (and this case clearly shows Utah does not release state created works to the public domain). Hope this explains things. -Andrew c (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes it did. Thanks for the explanation. bye :] --JoeJohnson2 (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Documenting our position on the URAA

There has been considerable confusion on Commons and other wikis regarding whether we observe the URAA, whether the URAA is still in force, and the role of the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag. Although I realise that as a community we have not reached consensus about the URAA for a long time now, I believe this lack of consensus should itself be clearly documented, so that people know what's going on and what they should do. Simple questions need to be answered, like "can I upload this image whose copyright was restored by the URAA?", "will my image be deleted if it has a Not-PD-US-URAA tag?" and so on. We should probably add a section to this page on the nebulous status of this topic. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Currently the only documentation is the template itself. Could you write something? Sv1xv (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - Did Golan v. Holder ever get appealed or reviewed? Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No; not being an urgent question, it'll take months if not years for the appeals to go through.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you please move the question in the previous section Requirement of being PD in the US on this same page? Thank you. Sv1xv (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: indeed this whole thing (whether an upload should be PD in both US and country of origin) should be sorted. Jappalang (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Dcoetzee, you are absolutely right. It is important to at least document that we don't now. Better would be a resolution. Nillerdk (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go ahead and add something on this. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read your text, it is a good introduction in plain language. It is difficult to explain it to the newcomer, so I propose to add an example calculation of the duration of an affected copyright. Sv1xv (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Mike Godwin about this (images that are PD in their country of origin but not in US, which might be due to URAA or some other reason) in today's IRC office hour, and he said "my view is that if material is understood to be in the public domain in its country of origin, then it's probably okay for someone to risk posting it to a wikimedia project, provided that, if the copyright holder complains, invoking rights under US law, in a properly crafted DMCA takedown notice, we'll probably take it down". (09:15:34) So I think Commons should allow such images as long as there is no reason to assume the copyright holder will complain. See also this discussion. --Tgr (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Icky. We'd be using material that is PD in country of origin under fair use only on Commons, or under grandfathered PD status, neither of which would apply to re-users of our material. OTH our PD-US tags say that a lot of our material isn't legal for people outside the U.S. because those countries do not apply the rule of the shorter term. From a practical standpoint, Mike's right, the community can continue to ignore this issue and deal with the files on a case by case basis if anyone complains (which was also his advice if anyone complains about de minimis inclusion of a copyrighted work). The only problem I see is how far do we as a community want to stray from our goals of freedom and reusability. Commons policies forbid making keep/delete decisions based on how likely we are to be sued (Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle) My personal opinion is works that were once PD in the U.S. but may have copyright restored are ok based on the theory that if the copyright owner cared about the work in the U.S. they would have registered/renewed it in a timely manner in the first place, and exerting URAA rights is sort of an extension of that, a second chance if you will to comply with U.S. formalities. If they continue to not bother to do so then why should we worry? -Nard the Bard 12:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

PD in the country of origin does not have to be the only criteria; it would make sense to exclude images which are famous or still sold in the US or would for some other reason go against the interest of the copyright holder. But the current situation is unnecessary exclusionary; there is no danger in orphan works, for example. (For an actual example, consider a locally famous author, now dead, whose family was asked to provide a photo for the local Wikipedia. They were happy to do that and allow free licensing, but people did not own cameras a century ago - all they had were a bunch of family photographs for which the author paid at some photography shop at a street corner. No need to say that the shop, not to mention the owner, is impossible to identify from the distance of 80 years. Now, EU has 70 years of protection for unpublished images by unknown authors, so the image is PD in its country of origin, but US protects such images for 120 years. Obviously, no one would sue Wikimedia because the photo his grandfather took from someone for a dollar's worth of money is technically still protected in the US, even if he had same magical method of finding out that the image has indeed been made by his grandfather. The image is free content (as the definition of free content is not US-specific), highly encyclopedic, irreplaceable and has no risk at all. It is unreasonable to forbid hosting it on Commons, however that seems to be the current status quo.) --Tgr (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree file

Is there anywhere here that resembles the English Wikipedia's en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files page? File:LutyensHouse.gif (originally uploaded at en:wp) is marked as being GFDL and CC-by-sa-3.0, but has been contested as being "a modified copyright en:Country Life picture". I'm not sure the copyright status of this file, so I'd like input. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To simply ask about the copyright, I guess this is the right place. If you think it should be deleted, COM:DR is the right venue. Wknight94 talk 15:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It could be an issue... depending on when it was published and if there was a named author. The magazine in question started in 1897, so there is a chance it is old. If it is from a recent image, or even pretty old, then probably not, obviously. Found a copy of the source image here... definitely not a recent photo (a lot of that house is overgrown with stuff in modern pictures), but may not be old enough. Hrm. The house itself was finished in 1901. No idea when the photo is from though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The photo was published on 1903-05-09 in Country Life, vol XIII, p. 602. Image #533300 in their picture library. No photographer given online. Someone should check the magazine issue, or ask Country Life. Without photographer info, move back to en-WP and tag as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.Lupo 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, nice. They have a "Photographer" field in their info, but say it is "Country Life". Many of their other photos (such as the this one from the search result of your above link taken in 1913) do mention a particular photographer. In fact it seems there are only 58 pictures in their entire library marked with that "Photographer" (and 97 for Frederick Evans, the mentioned photographer in my link). So, this means that the owning/publishing company can't figure out who the photographer is... seems a pretty good case for {{PD-UK-unknown}}, and of course {{PD-1923}} as well for the U.S. side. I think it can be kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

1912 Dutch portrait photo

Through Wikiportrait this photo was uploaded for upload to Wikimedia Commons. The photo has been made in 1912. The photographer is H.Deutmann from The Hague, it is unknown when he died. However, the photo seems to be a portrait photo, and the subject of the photo was the person paying for the photo and giving the assignment for it. The uploader is a relative of the subject (most likely a heir). He has released the photo under a free license and is even willing to take the risk upon himself for any copyright problems that might appear.

So much for the facts. Would it be a reasonable assumption that:

  • the subject of the photo actually owns the copyright due to the fact that he gave the assignment and paid for the photo?
  • the uploader is most likely a heir, and can release the photo under a free license?

For my own reference, the ticket number is 2009091010062177.

--Effeietsanders (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this, Deutmann was dead in 1927. His dates were 1870 – 1926 (source). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Another version of this photo here. FWIW. Article 19 of the Dutch copyright law does seem to give wide latitude to the subject of commissioned portraits, but since copyright has expired, it is irrelevant. It would appear to be public domain in the U.S. as well by virtue of being published before 1923. So, it should be fine to upload. [Nice find, btw -- I looked but only found stuff on other Deutmanns, who were probably related, but not the same person -- though I think I did find further initials as "H.F.J.M. Deutmann".] Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Like you, I found several Deutmanns.
  1. Franz Wilhelm Deutmann (Dorsten 1808-07-21 - 1895-11-16 Delft). Photographer, many locations (Harlem, Utrecht, Amsterdam), see [12].
  2. Franz Wilhelm Heinrich Deutmann (Harlem ? - 1906-07-09 Soest), in Zwolle. Son of (1). First professional photographer in Zwolle.[13]
  3. Franz Wilhelm Maria Deutmann (Zwolle 1867 - 1915 Blaricum), painter. Relation to the others unclear, but given the birth location, possibly a son of (2).
  4. "Our" H.F.J.M. Deutmann (1870 - 1926), court photographer, in The Hague. Relation to the others unclear. Another son of (2)? Also see [14].
Lupo 09:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(3) is the son of (2), I'm pretty sure -- born in Zwolle, and references say his father was also a photographer. I updated Creator:Frans Deutman with the info I found yesterday. Seems possible that HFJM Deutmann was a brother, but like you found no actual indication of that. Anyways, the photo is {{PD-Old}}, and should also be marked with {{PD-1923}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, thank you. None the less, for future photo's the question remains of course :) Effeietsanders (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Jaculus(rodent).jpg

Yes check.svg Resolved

Just uploaded this one. Looking for a place to get an opinion on the license, figured this would the place to start. Just nuke it if it's not OK. Thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Seb, the licensing here is clearly non-free. Flickr is a good source for free images, see Commons:Flickr, but only those licensed under Creative Commons licenses free for commercial reuse and modification are accepted here. This image is licensed non-commercial on Flickr by its author. --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks, wasn't aware of that difference, thought I'd just give it a shot. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing redundent licenses?

File:Steamtrain PRR H10 7688.JPG is currently tagged with three permissions templates: GFDL, CC-by-sa 3.0, and {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} requiring nothing but attribution. Two questions: (1) Because the "provided that" says simply "a mention to "Ad Meskens" be included", would it be reasonable to replace this tag with {{Attribution}}? (2) Would removing the GFDL and CC templates be a bad idea? As far as I can see it, the situation isn't a simple case of triple-licensing: one is free to violate the terms of both GFDL and CC, as long as the author is attributed, while following either one will result in following the CopyrightedFreeUse... requirement. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1) That seems reasonable. 2) Bad idea. Keeping them takes away any question if they are compatible with GFDL etc. There are bound to be potential re-users out there who are leery of a simple license like Attribution. Seems unlikely but with copyright situations, the unlikely is guaranteed to crop up eventually. Better to keep all the licenses; doesn't hurt a thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Items in post-June 2006 US patents are not in public domain?

Template:PD-US-patent was created in 2005, and seemingly updated and confirmed in May 2006, based on the archived discussion Commons talk:Licensing/U.S. patents. The crux of the undertaking as I take it is the quoted paragraph.

Patents are published into the public domain as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. [...] In other words, the fact that a patent's description is in the public domain does not give you permission to manufacture or use the invention without permission from the inventor during the active life of the patent.

Web archive links of the USPTO page in question

However, this seems to hold true only till 13 June 2006. Around this date, the USPTO changed the statements to:

Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions. The inventors' right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States for a limited time is not compromised by the publication of the description of the invention. In other words, the fact that a patent's description may have been published without copyright restrictions does not give you permission to manufacture or use the invention without permission from the inventor during the active life of the patent.

The terms "public domain" have been removed. In other words, it seems that the items in patents granted after May 2006 are not public domain materials, albeit they might not have copyright restrictions. The template is inaccurate in this aspect. Jappalang (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We typically use "public domain" to mean "no copyright", but that isn't true for everyone -- sometimes it is used to indicate no trademark or other significant restrictions too. The regulations on included drawings are specifically about copyright, so it sounds like they changed their wording to be more specific. However, per our typical usage, they are still "public domain". None of our "PD" templates imply anything about trademark or other restrictions which may exist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Can this image be transferred over from the English Wikipedia?

Can the file w:File:Middle-Temple-Library.jpg be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons? It has a CC-BY-2.5 licence. The image description page states: "This picture is the copyright of the Lordprice Collection and is reproduced on Wikipedia with their permission." The uploader was w:User:Lordprice. However, there is no indication that an OTRS ticket was obtained. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll NPD it to be safe. I'd say that the information on it is contradictory, therefore will need evidence of permission, so not for Commonsisation yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, what's NPD? — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought – the drawing is dated 1892. Can it be relicensed as PD-Art? — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, could well be. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, will try that and see if anyone objects. The image is now in the Commons at File:MiddleTempleLibrary-London-Railton-1892.jpg. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated licenses

This is based on the discussion of a current undeletion request: Someone uploads a file using a valid license tag. Two years later the license tag becomes deprecated, like {{PD}} or {{Military Insignia}}. Another 2 years later there is a deletion request based on the invalid license tag. However the uploader is no longer active, so nobody can change the licensing, unless the original tag is a flavor of PD. What do we do then? For {{PD}} there are some basic options, but with {{Military Insignia}} we have a real problem. Sv1xv (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Same thing we do with any file with incorrect licensing. If a file does not have a correct license then it falls outside Commons:Project scope and cannot be hosted here. Most of the military insignia could be redrawn (and much more nicely as a vector graphic) if someone put some time into it. -Nard the Bard 19:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a very unfair deletionist view, because the file has a license irregularity for technical reasons. Furthermore the irregularity is caused by some administrative quirk on Commons. Sv1xv (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
      • {{Military Insignia}} isn't a license, it's a declaration. If you can verify the actual copyright status of the image, you can replace {{Military Insignia}} with something else. If the copyright status of the image can't be verified, it probably doesn't belong on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
        • It was (wrongly) acceptable as a license back then. The uploaders in 2005 and 2006 meant to release their own artwork as PD (CC licenses were not very popular yet) and were made to believe that {{Military Insignia}} was enough. Now we cannot get in touch and ask them to replace it with an acceptable tag like {{PD-self}}. At the same time we have no right to tag them with {{PD-author}} on their behalf. So are we going to delete a number of files just because uploaders were given insufficient and/or misleading instructions by Commons admins in the past? If we do, then there is something foundamentaly wrong with the way we (mis)handle copyright issues on Commons. Sv1xv (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah, I see what you mean. It looks like a lot of these were uploaded by White Cat. Wonder where he's wondered off to. You may want to try emailing him. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
            • The problem is that most do not have even sources and when I do find the source, they are not by him or the other users. A lot of the insignia images came from a website that discusses and draws images and they forbid reuse for commercial uses and also modification. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Sounds like we either need to toss them, or send them to the en Graphics Lab so we can make our own versions. Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
                • Problem is that someone tagged them with nld instead of a DR and now they will get nuked. That makes it harder to send them to the lab. I also think it will undermine the trust to commons that things are not handled the way it says on the template. --MGA73 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • Well first problem it that the first files were speedyed WITHOUT warning. After I objected then they were nld'en and then an other admin converted them to a DR. If we had them on a bad license for 2 years we could have them a few weeks more so there is time to contact original uploader or for others to try to find source or images that could replace the "bad ones". --MGA73 (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hard to imagine this is not PD

http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/boydBraas&CISOPTR=6&CISOBOX=1&REC=8

Source says "ca. 1889" (I'm guessing it might be a year or two later, long story). Tinted photograph, caption written onto it at lower left, professional photographer's logo at lower right. Hard to believe this wasn't for publication at the time. Source (University of Washington Libraries) makes vague claim of copyright. Any reason to think this wouldn't be PD-US? - Jmabel ! talk 06:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a way to circumvent this, which has unpublished works where the death of the author is unknown, anything published before 1889 is public domain. After, 120 years after creation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Any unpublished works created before 1889 are public domain. But it is pretty hard to believe that was unpublished, given the caption on the photo -- seems like they would sell that one. It was scanned from a print, not the original negative. PD-1923 I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with Carl on this one. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Uploaded at File:Seattle - looking south on 1st Ave from roughly Cherry Street, c. 1889.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the letter protected by copyright?

I would like to upload the file [15]. It is a Czech letter from cardinal Vlk to me (as a reprezentant of the International Youth Congress of Esperanto), where he promises come to the Congress and celebrate there a mass in Esperanto, besides he accepts auspices over the Congress and becomes a honour member of the Czech Esperanto Youth by it. Do you think the letter is protected by copyright or it presents only an unprotected information material, expression of personal attitudes? --Petrus Adamus (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

An expression of personal attitudes, I should think, would be one of the topmost categories of protected works. Powers (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
But I imagine it would be pretty easy for you to get OTRS permission. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

License question

The source of the file is here. It says that the chart could be used free of charge except using it for the Navigation. IMO the use for the Navigation is prohibited due to safety concern only. Everything else was cleared up by the permission ticket 2009092410077341 Is it OK to keep the image File:Navigational map of the way of our icebreaker in Ross Sea.jpg, if it cannot be used for the Navigation? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Such a restriction, if it is legally binding at all, is a non-copyright restriction and therefore outside our concern. Powers (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree but am not 100% sure. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's some more information: The image in question is a chart from 2001. It shows few B15 icebergs that have melted a long time ago. Nobody ever will want to use it for the Navigation.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This is what the website says: "Paper charts have been scanned as high resolution tiffs and low resolution jpegs and may be downloaded here free of charge. The chart images provided do not replace the New Zealand official nautical charts corrected for Notices to Mariners and are not designed to meet the requirements of marine navigation. In the interests of good seamanship and safety of navigation, all craft navigating in New Zealand waters should purchase official New Zealand nautical charts for their intended voyage from a chart retailer. ... Where chart data is downloaded, reproduced, derived or copied from LINZ material, the following acknowledgement note must be shown on the product and associated media: 'Sourced from Land Information New Zealand data. Crown Copyright Reserved.'" [Emphasis added.]
I don't think the problem is the disclaimer that the charts are not designed for navigational use. That is clearly a safety warning to mariners to use proper, official charts and not download stuff from the Internet to rely on. The main issue is whether the statement to the effect that editors may download charts from the website free of charge but must include a copyright acknowledgement note is a sufficiently free licence. I do not think it is. I suggest that the website owner be contacted and specifically asked if it consents to the charts being freely used, including being modified and used for commercial purposes. — Cheers, JackLee talk 05:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that Mbz1 mentioned that the image has already obtained OTRS permission ticket 2009092410077341. However, the image description page was tagged with the notice "[T]he message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published." This reinforces my belief that the copyright owner needs to be contacted again and asked to confirm that it consents to the image being licensed under a free licence. Till that step is taken, I don't think we can have the image on the Wikimedia Commons. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, of course; I was assuming the OTRS permission was valid. Powers (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

More specific PD template

I just observed that File:Henry II of England - Illustration from Cassell's History of England - Century Edition - published circa 1902.jpg is tagged simply with {{PD}}. Source, reason for PD, and upload date from before the deadline given on that template are all clear: it was scanned from a PD-old source and uploaded more than three years before that template was declared obsolete. Is there any reason that I shouldn't replace the current template with a PD-old? Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to know the name of the artist. If the artist died before 1939, then the image is {{PD-old}}. Sv1xv (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The book appears to be ([1902?]) Cassell's History of England: The Text Revised Throughout, and Profusely Illustrated with New and Original Drawings by the Best Artists, as well as with Reproductions in Colours of Historical Paintings by Famous Artists, etc., London: Cassell OCLC: 221297936. The image in question appears to be one of the "new and original drawings" as it does not look like a colour reproduction of a historical painting by a famous artist. Someone should try and get hold of the book and see if it contains a copyright notice regarding the artworks in it, and the name of the artist. If the artist is unnamed, it may be fair to assume the author is anonymous, in which case the copyright lasted for 70 years from the date of publication: see "Commons:Licensing#United Kingdom". The image thus entered the public domain around 1972. Alternatively, the copyright may belong to the book publisher (Cassell) rather than the individual artist. However, I'm not sure how long the copyright lasts in such cases. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
In the UK you must prove that, after reasonable research, the work is anonymous, see {{PD-UK-unknown}}. This requirement is more relaxed in other European countries ({{Anonymous-EU}}. Sv1xv (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
That is for *unknown* authors -- different than anonymous. But we'd have to show that the the author was actually not credited in the book. And technically, the copyright at the time was 50 years, so it would have expired in 1953 if anonymous (and was too old to be restored when terms changed to 70 years). It is public domain in the U.S., so it is fine on en-wiki (where it was first uploaded in 2004). That all said... there is a pretty clear "R. T." as a signature, so it's not anonymous. There is an "S T" mark of sorts on the middle left side as well. Archive.org has a copy (different edition probably) here. I do not see any illustrator listings to determine who "R.T." is. There doesn't seem to be an explicit mention of copyright, but not sure that was needed in the UK, and it predated the U.S. legislation which started requiring copyright notices anyways. Still, it is probably possible to figure out who the author was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ornate cruise ship interiors

This may fall under COM:FOP - and I generally avoid such discussions... I have a few pictures of ornate cruise ship interiors, especially central atriums. Would there be an issue with the architect or designer claiming copyright? For COM:FOP, we generally look towards the country where the subject is, but this is a moving cruise ship. Thanks for any advice. Wknight94 talk 11:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd guess that the country of registry would be the relevant one. More difficult if the picture was taken inside the territorial waters of a different country, though. Anyone know more about this? - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I believe they were all taken in waters of the United States, although the trip was in Canadian waters for some portions so I can't say for absolute certain. Wknight94 talk 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
A very interesting question! Generally, a seagoing vessel counts as national territory and is under the jurisdiction of the country of registry. When sailing in different national waters, certain local laws may additionally apply. However, the applicable copyright law is determined by the country of "first publication". If we assume that the maiden voyage counts as "publication" and that the ship is already registered at that point, then the copyright law or the country of (first) registry seems to apply. --Latebird (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I'm leaning towards "never mind - I'll just paste it in the scrap book...." Wknight94 talk 15:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
That's an extra special case. If the ship was in US waters, the images are definitely not usable, because FOP in the USA is for buildings only. If it was in Canadian waters, they might be usable. Canada has, however, a treaty with the USA whereby cruise ships are sometimes to be considered US territory even when going through Canadian waters, which is why there is a USCBP facility at Vancouver cruise terminal. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos of paintings in own collection

I have nominated File:Roger Regenwetter 10.JPG for deletion. The uploader says that it is from his/her own collection; see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/د.هدية_الأيوبي I found Roger Regenwetter 1906-1983. Is this nomination right? If so than all the others can be deleted as well. Thanks, Wouter (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Owners of paintings can basically do as they please with their paintings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure about that? If a museum buys a painting, the painter still owns the copyright. PD-old depends on the author, not the owner, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
That is mostly about moral rights. The economic copyright is tied to the life of the author, but that does not mean that the author is the owner of the copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The author may or may not be the owner of the copyright, but the copyright doesn't travel with the physical painting; unless the rights were signed over with the sale of the painting, the owner of the painting doesn't have the right to make copies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, copyright isn't attached to physical ownership. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with that. I'm not familiar with US law, but in UK and Singapore law, the general position is that ownership of a physical item (a book, a painting, a sculpture) does not mean entail ownership of the copyright embodied in the item unless this has been specifically licensed by the author to the owner of the item, or the item was commissioned from the author by the owner under an agreement whereby the copyright would reside in the owner. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Pieter, the whole point of copyright is that it's distinct from physical ownership. Under some legislations, the owner may control to a more or less extent the representation of its property, but that's a whole different ballgame. Unless the owner can prove they were also transferred copyright, which is not standard when you buy an artwork, only the artist may authorize the publication, reproduction and so on of this painting. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Two questions regarding copyright status of videos - Bellagio musical fountain, application

I took video of the musical fountain at the Bellagio hotel. It is my understanding that I have to remove the audio since it is some copyrighted American song. After doing that, it's ok to upload?

Secondly, I have video of my brother using a w:Microsoft Surface application. Is that allowed for upload? mahanga (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Another question: If I take video of a dance performance at an event, am I allowed to upload that? It was a city sponsored outdoor event (Worldfest), though there was a $5 cost to get in. Photography and video-recording was allowed and encouraged. mahanga (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

UK Crown copyright stamp images

Today I nominated two stamps File:Carl Anton Larsen JASON Stamp.jpg‎ and File talk:South Georgia JASON stamp.jpg‎ as copyvios due to being still under crown copyright. On the stamp talk pages the uploader Hbkitty claims these images are covered by the crown copyright waiver mentioned here on our licencing page, but he also suggests they should be allowed under a fair-use claim. This waiver seems to apply to structural works on display in a public place but I doubt it covers postage stamps as certain artistic works on public display. I found the legislation here but it is not any clearer than our own, very similar, licencing description. I believe his interpretation of the UK law is too wide and would require us to allow a range of material generally regarded as unfree. Thoughts folks? Ww2censor (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, works of artistic craftsmanship has a specific definition in their law, and explicitly does not include graphic works, and presumably a postage stamp would be a graphic work. The section of the law being referred to is in regards to what we call "freedom of panorama", which is a very different subject. I'm sure it would qualify for for fair use on some articles on en-wiki, but Commons does not host fair-use images, so in that case it would need to be uploaded locally to en-wiki (and any other wikis that want to use it on a fair-use basis). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
What Carl said, basically; "works of artistic craftsmanship" basically refers to 3D sculptures and the like. It's covered in some detail at COM:FOP. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
However, if the artwork depicted on the stamps, or either of them, is out of copyright, then we probably can use them, as the Queen's head is out of copyright as over 50 years old and the other elements aren't copyrightable. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really, the Machin design was created in 1967, so it is still under copyright. Only the old style stamps with the Wilding portrait (1952) are now free, see File:Stamp UK 1952 3p.jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks folks for confirming what I thought. During the night I assumed this was related to "freedom of panorama" and not graphic works. Ww2censor (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The stamp in question is a scan of a photo that was taken by my father who was a philatelist and also the grandson of the person on the stamp. He used the photo a number of times in catalogs he produced with permission. He has since past away and so I now own the rights to the photograph. I then made a scan of the photo. I also believe the following Exceptions to copyright apply:

(As with many other countries the UK defines an exception to copyright infringement for artistic works on public display. Section 62 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 states that it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.)

Since I own the rights to the photo and the stamp is displayed in the museum in Grytviken I do not believe I have infringed on any copyright. (Hbkitty (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

The problem is that the stamp is neither a building, nor a sculpture, nor a model for a building, nor a work of artistic craftsmanship, so Section 62 does not apply to it (nor does it apply to paintings or other 2-D, graphic works). The photo is still a derivative work of the stamp and whoever made the paintings featured on them (and, in the U.S. may qualify as a straight copy rather than a derivative work -- see {{PD-Art}} and the links there). In "real life", yes, I doubt anyone would complain -- and many uses, as you say, would fall under fair use/fair dealing anyways. However, Commons does not accept works under that criteria; it is a philosophical position that we can only host works free (or nearly free) of copyright entanglements -- usable in all situations, which include uses outside the bounds of fair use or fair dealing. If Section 62 applied, that would be fine, but it doesn't -- see the freedom of panorama links above which go over the meaning of that section in more detail. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced images

I had tagged these two images as unsourced[16][17], since their initial licenses were clearly false, yet Pieter Kuiper reverted my edits and wrote that it didn't matter (implying they were PD) in the edit summary. I then reverted him and said that we don't know if they are PD because we don't know where the images were first published, since there's no source, but he then reverted me again and gave them PD Saudi Arabia tags. But still no source. I tried to discuss it with him here[18], but he hasn't responded. What should be done? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Getty Images/AFP

Anyone know the copyright terms of images such as these? I was interested in finding images to illustrate en:25 October 2009 Baghdad bombings. According to this, these images are intended to report a newsworthy event and no release is required. Is a Wikipedia article, illustrating a newsworthy event? Jolly Janner (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It would have to be under fair use, the image should be usable for any purpose if it is to be uploaded to Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I second that. The website that you referred to states: "Not released. This image/clip has no model or property release. Any commercial use requires additional clearance." This means that the images definitely cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons under their current licence, because Commons content must be licensed under a free licence that permits commercial use and/or modification.
Theoretically, in limited circumstances you may upload such images to, say, the English Wikipedia, provided you satisfy the non-free content criteria. However, these criteria are strict and not easy to satisfy. This is the Wikipedia side of the issue. On the Getty Images side, note also that the website you referred to says that "typically no release is required" for "editorial use intended to report a newsworthy event or illustrate a matter of general interest". Wikipedia articles are not intended to report news (see "w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not"), so you cannot rely on that statement. I suppose, though, it could be argued that Wikipedia articles are "matter[s] of general interest". Generally, it is best not to rely on images from a photography agency such as Getty Images. — Cheers, JackLee talk 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Would Wikinews have a better chance of fullfiling the criteria? Jolly Janner (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I suppose so! Can't really give a definitive view about it, though. There may be more information at Wikinews about the matter. — Cheers, JackLee talk 01:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Special manner of attribution?

Hello, how to deal with request by author "My name (Bernd Haynold) must be clearly visible close to the picture!" in the File:Frullania dilatata 150108b.jpg? Is it necessary to mention author's name in the image caption in the wikipedia? Isn't already author's name clearly visible close to the picture for all images in wikipedia? --Snek01 (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see the harm in putting the photographer's name in the image caption. Consider the fact that he made his work freely available, and according to freedomdefined.org reasonable attribution demands still make a work free. I consider this to be a reasonable demand. -Nard the Bard 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
To answer the question “Isn't already author's name clearly visible close to the picture for all images in wikipedia?”: well, no. A friend of mine is considering not uploading his photos here any more, because he is not properly attributed across the web. How? Because people usually simply copy-and-paste content from Wikipedia, and this is why, on other websites, those pictures are not properly attributed. It is logical that people want this situation to change. Diti the penguin 17:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This would be a big change in how e.g. Wikipedia uses the images. Now the captions have only the information relevant for the article itself. Adding photographers' names would add clutter. And if you allow such a requirement for one image (and that one is being used), you should put names in all captions, for equality's sake. I would avoid those images, the same way we avoid fair use images (in projects allowing them), images with watermarks and images with low resolution.
Promising to put the names in captions and then replacing the images is unfair against the contributors. Putting the names in captions is not common practice on the net. I think the Wikimedia projects should not start such a practice, when the names are easily available for the interested reader.
As to the problem – reusing Wikimedia media without respecting the license and the artists – I think the "names in caption" solution isn't leading anywhere. Then we should also put the license in the caption. How much clutter do we want there? How much clutter will stay when reusing? (Do you really copy and paste images including captions?)
My advice is to sue reusers that do not respect the license (including the attribution requirement). Or rather ask for the sum you would as a professional photographer, were your commercial images published without permission, attribution and payment – and explaining that your images are indeed available for free, but only on the terms of the free license.
--LPfi (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with LPfi. This is not the only one "problem" author, there are also other ones File:Cephalozia bicuspidata.jpeg. I will surely avoid to use such images and I will rather do not use any. --Snek01 (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)