Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

€

Contents

[edit] Arabic Laws

A new template {{template:PD-Arabic}} is to be considered,

  • Jordan Law states starting for the date of Publication, a 25 years protection for photos after which it is in Public Domain.
  • Syrian Law states that starting for the date of Publication, a 10 years protection for photos after which it is in Public Domain. It states also, that any one included in any photo has the right to use it with no ristricion.
  • Egypt Law states that starting for the date of Publication, a 15 years protection for photos after which it is in Public Domain.
  • Algerian Law states that starting for the date of Publication, a 50 years protection for photos after which it is in Public Domain.
  • Sudanese Law states that starting for the date of Publication, a 50 years protection for photos after which it is in Public Domain.
  • Iraq Law states that starting for the date of Publication, a 5 years protection for photos after which it is in Public Domain.
  • Kuwait Law stats that starting for the date of Publication, a 50 years protection for photos after which it is in Public Domain.
  • Yemen Law states that starting for the date of Publication, a 10 years protection for photos after which it is in Public Domain.
  • Algerian law states a 50 years protection after the Death of the photos auther after which it is in Public Domain.
  • Lebanon Law states that starting for the date of Publication, a 50 years protection for photos after which it is in Public Domain.

I will check for other Arabic countries laws. If needed some one can recheck the laws, as they were written in Arabic --Tarawneh 21:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Images of public places

It seems that this topic was mentioned somewhere in the talk page, but I cannot see any kind of summary here or on the project page. So let me sum up the issue here.

  • The photographs of sculptures or buildings are derivative works.
  • In case of the derivative works, the copyright law requires the consent of the primary author to publish the derivative work.
  • However, all the jurisdictions I know make an exception for the case of works that are presented in public areas under the "fair use" clause and allow to do almost anything one wants with the picture.
  • This means that virtually all the pictures of the public places are here under the "fair use" clause which is forbidden.

This inconsistency gives rise to the following possible solutions:

  1. to ban all such pictures,
  2. to allow such pictures and make an additional explanation on the Commons:Licensing page,
  3. to allow such pictures and make no additional explanation on the Commons:Licensing page.

IMHO option 2 is the best one, but it will require some good formulation, because this is law and all kinds of strange court ruling are possible here (like the ruling for the en:Eiffel Tower#Image_copyright). Any comments? Alx 14:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The national laws are differing, see the German article Panoramafreiheit. We accept here without problems copyright protected works from the German speaking countries de,at,ch at public places according the Panoramafreiheit in their laws. --Historiograf 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is something I was afraid of here. The issue is complicated and not so obvious when one goes from one country to the other even in EU where the copyright law is to be harmonized. Maybe there should be an article on that topic here on commons (starting with the information from de:Panoramafreiheit)? Or maybe link to the German article is enough? I can help a bit on translating Panoramafreiheit, but this makes sense only when the expertise of people from many coutries can be used. Of course, I can use also the GfD process and de:Panoramafreiheit to get to know on the licences in cases I have doubts, but then it will be only me to gather the expertese. Alx 12:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As main author of the de article I can give some support --Historiograf 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. May I point out that the difference in national laws sometimes is critical enough to make a photo legal or illegal?

The U.S. copyright law has the provision to limit copyright with regards to some architectural works [1]. But this does not apply to sculpture. Leicester v Warner Bros. (232 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2000)) was in part on this point - wheather a given work which appeared in a movie was "architecture" or "sculpture." In the context of Japanese law, original artistic works that are permanently installed outside and architectural works are subject to copyright restrictions. This obviously includes sclupture. Yet the restriction does not cover as much freedom as Wikimedia Commons requires, I think. Namely, commercial use of photographic reproduction of the said artistic works, as well as sales of the reproduction, are prohibited when the use mainly features the work. To boldly simplify, it is okay to include public art pieces in a photo if the inclusion is incidental. It is also okay to include public art pieces in a photo if the inclusion is not for commercial purpose. Yet it is a copyvio to produce postcard or T-shirt featuring picture of that kind of art work.

(Please note I am not a lawyer.) Tomos 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom There is a freedom of panorama in the UK, according to this 1988 law, assuming it has not been replaced. I don't know what "works of artistic craftsmanship" are—they are not defined in the Act. However it is pretty clear about non-infringing images of buildings, models of buildings and sculptures. Could someone draft an explanation of this for the Commons:Licensing article, please? --InfantGorilla 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
ref. United Kingdom. A Google search turned up more links on "works of artistic craftsmanship". I am not a lawyer, but it seems that pictures, paintings and photographs displayed in a public place are not given freedom by this rule, while pottery and holograms are. I am curious about maps. Links: UK Patent Office artquest Edin.Univ. --InfantGorilla 13:10, 20 October 2006
UK law is not mentioned at Commons:Licensing, but it is explained at COM:FOP#Great_Britain which I was not aware of when I asked the above question. Should Commons:Licensing carry links to COM:FOP?
Anyone any opinion about maps in public places in the UK? --InfantGorilla 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Copyright illegal?

There are those here who believe the EUCD invalidates the laws of countries which conflict with the their understand of the 70 year pma provision.

Under this argument, Crown copyright is illegal according to the EUCD, because works of the UK government fall into the public domain after 50 years, not 70 years after the death of the author of the work.

Is there an exception that applies to the UK? If so, what is it? -Mak 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The crown is according to English law rights holder and will not sue users in other countries. Stop confusing things you have no knowledge of --Historiograf 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference? According to Italian law, the Italian government is a rights holder. You assert that you know something about this subject as well you may. Yet you refuse to display your knowlege. It was a simple question. Show us why EUCD does not apply to UK, while it does to other countries. -Mak 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, Crown Copyright is not allowed here, due to it not allowing for commercial use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue was that the EUCD allows crown copyright which is shorter, while some here contend that EUCD rules mean it is 70 years after the death of the author in other countries. Just trying to clear up the contradiction. Whether or not crown copyright is usable on commons is a distinct (orthogonal) issue. -Mak 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no contradiction. Copyright in government works has always been a separate issue to copyright in private works. Since the government itself is the rights holder it is quite open to them to pass legislation granting themselves a shorter, or indeed a far longer, term of protection than ordinary works. I would point out that copyright in works assigned to the Crown has the same duration as private copyrights and that international organisations like the UN and Organisation of American States have copyright protection of the same length as the British Government in UK law. Historiograf is correct to say to you to stop confusing things that you have no knowledge of. Things under Crown copyright are not allowed on Commons since, as Zachary mentions, the Crown copyright waivers have conditions which are incompatible with copyleft. However it is quite correct to use the PD-UKGov template on Commons as OPSI is the rights holder for Crown copyright and I have an email from one of their senior people saying that OPSI consider the expiry of Crown copyright in the UK to apply worldwide. David Newton 11:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mak, the Italian law I believe you have in mind is not an analogy to the UK situation. The article in question (Art. 11) does not apply exclusively to works of the state, but also to those published in the name and at the expense of e. g. "private legal entities of a non-profit-making character", if there's no other agreement. That means that if somebody takes pictures of his boccia club's tournament, which are paid for and published in the club's newsletter (a non-profit organisation) without mentioning the author's name and with no special agreement, they will fall under the regulation of this law. The state is not even involved in these cases.
If a state decides to waive his rights and make his works enter the public domain earlier than their copyright expires abroad, one may well take his word for it that he is not going to sue anybody for copyright infringement, even though he possibly could abroad. The situation in the Italian law is very different in that it covers works of private persons not at all in the civil service, too.
--Wikipeder 13:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
David, I think you misunderstand my point. Folks on this forum have been waving the 70 year pma rule from the EU directive as some sort of blanket rule. According to article 11 of Italian copyright law, "Copyright in works created and published under the name and at the expense of the State, the Provinces or the Communes shall belong to them." [2] Wikipeder in fact is a party who believes that the Italian law is wrong. Read the Unesco translation of the passage and then read Wikipeder's statement above. Does the second paragraph treating the rights of non governmental entities somehow invalidate or make the copyright ownership of the Italian state different in kind from the copyright ownership of the UK government as Wikipeder suggests? How is it germaine at all to consideration of the rights of the Italian state?
Something allows the UK and Italian government to declare an exception from the 70 year pma rule. You have declared they are handled differently and I am inclined to believe you since both the UK and Italian laws have exceptions for government works. My question remains unanswered though. What in the EU harmonization directive allows this separate treatment of governmental versus personal works. If you know the specific passage that allows what you say, that would be most helpful.
It is a side issue, because as of January 1, 1996, under existing Italian law, the Italian government works that had been published 20 years prior were in the public domain. Since they were PD in the country of origin, they are PD in the US, under Title17, 104A h6b.
-Mak 00:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can give up one's copyright after e.g. twenty years without violating any EU law. You can also make provisions for the future, e.g. give up the copyright 37 years after your death or license everything you have under the GPL 5 years after the first human sets step on Mars. A company like Disney could say: "For all works for which we hold copyright, we hereby give up copyright 50 years after the death of the last living author."
There are no reasons to believe that a government could not do a similar thing with respect to works for which it holds copyright (note that the member states also define details on who owns the copyright) nor that EU law cares whether a member state does this by passing a law or by releasing any other official statement. -- 3247 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Even closer to home, we have lots of EU-dwelling uploaders to commons explicitly waiving their copyright, apparently in violation of EU harmonization directives! Prison time for all!! Too bad no death penalty, we could get that 70-year-pma clock running sooner! :-) :-) Stan Shebs 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

Commons:Licensing#Screenshots has a bad picture.. The wikipedia logo is copyrighted, which doesnt jive with the text.-Ravedave 05:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Thus, if the programmers do .... not explicitly license the screenshot (or all screenshots) under a free license, the screenshot is not free." => How can programmers explicitly license the screenshot?--193.11.181.62 12:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If they say "We license this specific screenshot under this license." Since they are the program's copyright holders, they can say what people can and cannot do with screenshots in general or specific screenshots. For example, they could release a specific screenshot for promotional purposes. ~MDD4696 15:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitulating clarification of copyright status

I am concerned that we may be capitulating effort at determining the copyright status of various images by way of asserting they came from <x> website which has a free-use license associated with all images on the site. There are several such sites we associated tags here and on other language wikipedias. For example, Image:Coat of arms of Israel.png is considered free-use because it comes from Vector-Images.com. What assurances do we have that all of the content from that website is in fact verified on a case by case basis as being available under the licenses they indicate? We are making assumptions about these images without verification of our own. I think in a project our size, with the visibility we have, we need to be more cautious than this. Such assumptions open us up to potentially serious copyright issues if the sites we are assuming are ok turn out not to be ok. To further illustrate this, I'd like to point to [3], which is another site hosting the Israel coat of arms. The license they are offering the image under is considerably different; see [4]. Which website do we trust to have it right? I say neither; we should verify ourselves, from the original author (or copyright holder), what the copyright status of the image is. Thoughts? --Durin-en 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Also I'd like to point out a case where Vector-images.com seems to have it wrong. Observe: Vector-images.com's version of the Arizona State Seal. Then, have a look at en.wikipedia's version. There, it states "The Arizona State seal has limited use under Arizona Revised Statutes and cannot be used for commercial purposes. Those wishing to use the seal must first obtain permission from the Arizona Secretary of State's Office, who is the keeper of the Great Seal of Arizona. Contact them at 602-542-4285." This is codified within the Arizona State Statutes at [5]. I think we can generally conclude from that statute that use of the Seal of Arizona is under a non-commercial license. Thus, Vector-images.com has it wrong. --Durin-en 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the 'Arizona Revised Statutes' are a copyright restriction. They're a...other restriction. We tend to allow these. For example you can't use the Red Cross symbol to just put on your doctor's surgery sign, that kind of thing. It's a restriction, but not because of the copyright status/ For official symbols such as seals, this is very common. See {{PD-Seal}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the distinction we're making here between copyright and "other" (local legislative restriction). If the usage of a state seal went to court, copyright probably wouldn't enter into it. This makes it a little difficult for us to evaluate how freely reusable these things are. Aside from that, why do we think, for instance, that the original design of Image:Coat of arms of Israel.png is freely licensed or in the public domain? We actually do need to keep track of that sort of thing, and I think Durin is right that we cannot rely upon Vector-images.com to do that work for us. Jkelly 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the vector-images information only relates to the work going into the image and not the original image itself. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scans of Sheet Music

It appears that there are some scans of sheet music on Commons, and was wondering whether it might be possible to make these more comprehensive. I have a few DVDs of sheet music published by [6]. The publishers state that the scans are accurate scans of public domain sheet music, but then go on to say that they hold copyright on the files. I believe that this is not true, at least in the US, due to Bridgeman vs. Corel.

Is this the case? Can these be uploaded to Commons legally if I remove the logo on the pages? If so, would these be acceptable contributions, or should they go somewhere else (Wikisource perhaps, though they are talking about moving page scans here?). --Constantine Evans 22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sheet music would be acceptable here. Whether or not these are legal is not immediately clear to me. Is it possible the music is PD but the sheet representation you should is not? (I don't know.) Does converting music to sheet-music representation have a legitimate copyright claim? I will look into it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"Arrangements:

The arrangement of music that is under copyright is protected separately from the music itself. If it is a recent arrangement of a public domain work, then the arrangement itself may be protected even though the original work is not. Protection in this instance depends on whether there is a sufficient degree of originality in the arrangement to constitute separate copyright protection in the arrangement. Copyright lasts for the life of the arranger plus 70 years after their death. "

from [7]Australian infosheet on "Copying print music". Although this is an Australian source I have a feeling law would be similar elsewhere. I could be wrong.
BTW are you aware of the Mutopia project? I don't think we should duplicate their efforts just to try and be the archive of everything. :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, but the issue here is that the arrangements are in the public domain. What the company claims copyright over are the scans of printed music where the prints are in the public domain. They have just scanned the pages and put their logo in the corner. --Constantine Evans 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Well if you're totally sure that the pages were already PD, then I agree, scanning them and putting a logo on them doesn't create copyright. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well in that case you would be wrong. Scanning them is making a slavish copy and thus does not cross the originality boundary for making a copyrighted work. However the act of sticking their logo in the corner means that they have now created a new copyrighted work by combining the scan and their logo. It's an awful practice but completely legal and there is nothing we can do about it. David Newton 11:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how sticking a logo on it consitutes "creative originality". The logo itself may be a problem, however. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if we removed the logo, the company would not be able to claim copyright. Without the logo it would basically return to being a copy of the original work, despite the process by which the image was obtained (scan, logo, logo removal). ~MDD4696 06:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What they may do is claim copyright over the files under software copyright rather than the information presented in those files. This is how fonts are copyrighted even though the typeface design itself is not copyrightable in the US. – flamurai 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright? Brand?

I've taken a photo of a pair of thai shorts and now I'm wondering what kind of copyright template should I use on it if I want to release it to Wikimedia? It got a small patch on it that states that it's made by "Fighter". Could that be a problem? Thanks for the help! --NoNo 13:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You can probably release it under free license. Chose one of the "Own work" licenses in the list of the upload form. / Fred Chess 10:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Okey, great thanks! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Thaiboxingshorts.jpg there it is. Sweet. --NoNo 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boardgames photo

I would ask an opinion about some photo in Category:Board games, I'm not sure if they are or not copyright violation

  • Image:Doom boardgame finnish cover.jpg Boxcover of the Doom boardgame - I think this is a copyright violation - it's not differente from a scan of the cover
  • Image:Game of life board.jpg takd during play, with mapboard, card, dice and other game element. It's a copyright violation because it's a derivative artkwork or no  ?
  • Image:Roborally cards.jpg gamecards for the game Roborally, again can be considered a derivative artwork and must be deleted ?
  • Image:VII Legio Boardgame.jpg boxcover and game screen. It's a derivative artwork? (I have uploaded this image, but now I'm not sure if can be keep on Commons).

I want to upload other image of boardgame during play, but before I start I want to be sure they can be uploaded.--Moroboshi 08:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The doom cover is a clear copyvio, I'll delete it. The Game of Life image seems OK to me, since it doesn't reproduce substntial parts of the graphics in a recognizable/reusable manner. The Roborally cards seem to be a copyvio (pleain 2D reproduction of the top card), will be deleted. I'm unsure about VII Legio - it's not plain reproductive, but it does show substantial parts of a copyrighted work in a plain and reusable manner. I'd recommend to file a (regular) deletion request for it, so this can be discussed. maybe do teh same for the Game of Life image, just to be sure.
A note about the Game of Life image: it probably is derivative work, but fair use of a type we do allow here. It's not talked about much, and probably shouldn't be advertized, in order to avoid confusion: we do not, and cannot allow "fair use" of images themselves, i.e. of images that are not under a free license. However, if the image is under a free license, but shows part of copyrighted works in a "fair" way, the copyright holders of the "originals" don't get coypright to the resulting image, and the image is fine under a free license. An example would be a picture of a bookshop, with some covers visible. Note that we are treading a thin line here, especially if the copyrighted work (the board, in this case) is the main subject ob the image. I'd like to get some more input on that from people that know more about copyright law.
IANAL -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a fine line. I was reading some court case linked from an en: article, and it was a question of ownership of a photograph of a Skyy vodka bottle, where the bottle was the main element of the picture (intended for an ad campaign, I think - photographer wanted his pics back), and one of the considerations was how much copyrightable material was contained in the rather plain bottle design. I recall that a point of discussion in en:'s fair-use images was that CD covers at a too-high resolution would actually be printed out and used as covers of bootlegs; it suggests that a useful criterion might be to say that if the would-be copier couldn't find enough bits in the image to make a plausible copy of the work, then it's not really a copyvio. Stan Shebs 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for you help, I nominate for deletion the Game of Life, VII Legio and another image to start a discussion.--Moroboshi 13:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I would say that images whose only purpose is to illustrate a copyrighted game board do not belong on Commons. (Such seem reasonable fair use for illustrating articles about the games on en:Wikipedia.) For the above images, if the game in question is under copyright, these seem too derivitive to put under a free licence. -- Infrogmation 13:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Before you read this post, scroll up a few lines and read Duesentrieb's "A note about the Game of Life image" again.
Now, derivative works are not obivous copyrights, but some users considered them not to be free enough for Commons, and wrote the page Commons:Derivative work. I wrote my disagreements of that page here. This has been discussed on the mailinglist here (scroll down to "Models, toys, and other objects can be copyrighted" ), but the opinions differed. The problem is that legally, the photos are probably OK to host on Commons, and they would be OK to use commercially in books, magazines and the like, but they can not be sold separately.
Fred Chess 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing for medical x-rays, etc.?

I typically write for the medical section of the English Wikipedia. Many a time, I have been unable to find a public domain radiologic image for an article which would truly benefit from one. However, I do have access to electronic patient x-rays which could be removed of all identifying information. Does anyone know if this is legal (in America)? Could they be licensed public domain? There are certainly things on Wikipedia/Commons such as pathology slides, intraoperative photographs, etc. I would love to be able to contribute but just don't know enough! InvictaHOG 18:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You might want to check to make sure that doing so is compliant with HIPPA requirements, and seek out good advice to make absolutely certain that you strip out anything that might be considered possibly iffy in that regard. I work with MRI data myself, and personally wouldn't want to risk my job or the university department in which I work over anything like that. If you have the opportunity, you might want to x-ray yourself to reduce a possible cause of concern involved with scanning someone else. --Improv 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I read through the HIPAA website today to try and find any mention. It seems that it would probably be okay as far as the website was concerned, though IANAL. Maybe I'll ask the hospital lawyers. Is there a WikiMedia protocol/licensing procedence for such media? We certainly have radiologic images here which were not submitted by the subject. InvictaHOG 20:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

According to German law they are Lichtbilder (§ 72 UrhG). Creator is the person who make the x-ray representation. There are strong personality rights regarding medical records. --Historiograf 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There are strong rights in America, too. Are you saying that the creator is the radiologist or the patient? InvictaHOG 20:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Creator is the radiologist, but copyright might rest with hospital or whatever organization the radiologist works for ("work for hire"), so ability to do PDness depends on agreement of whoever the copyright holder is. The patient should not be identifiable from the image, else you would need a "model release" as you see on a number of photographs of private individuals here. Stan Shebs 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In the United States, if there are no identifyable characteristics of the X-Ray'd individual, the free nature of the item will not be contested. Any notes provided to explain the x-ray, however, are probably copyrighted by the radiologist or physician making the diagnosis. Therefore, if the x-ray itself contains handwritten notes, it's probably an infringement of copyright. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert- Italian government works

Histrograf reverted a change to Commons Licensing which discusses support for the assertion that Italian goverment works are Public domain after 20years.


His justification was that there was no concensus on the point. As with the PD-Soviet case, I think it is fair to reflect the fact that the blanket assertion of the 70 year pma rule to Italy is disputed, citing the case for the dispute. PD-ItalyGov exists with this reasoning, and it is fair to notify people of the existence and use of this template on Commons. -Mak 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet statement is:

"This theory is unproven and disputed. See en:Template_talk:PD-USSR, and also Template talk:PD-Soviet."

The proposed Italy statement is:

"The theory that the 70 year pma rule applies to works of the Italian government is unproven and disputed. See Template talk:PD-ItalyGov."

I shall then move all relevant discussion to PD-ItalyGov and invite further discussion there. How does that sound to people? -Mak 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds OK. / Fred Chess 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Not for me. Nonsense remains Nonsense --Historiograf 00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Labeling and dismissing does nothing to illuminate anyone on this subject. Muster an argument and back it up with citation of law. To do otherwise is not what I would colorfully describe as nonsense, but it does not help anyone come to an understanding of what is true and what is false. Your theory that the so called 70 year pma rule overides Italian law that government works pass into the PD after 20 years is just that- unproven. If I am mistaken on this, show us the case where it has been proved that your theory is correct. If not, this is no different than the PD-Soviet situation, and it is fair to use the same language. -Mak 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:EUSP logo lowres.jpg licensing help needed

Can't find an appropriate license for low resolution organisation logotypes. I saw one at the English Wikipedia but the {{logo}} does not work here. An explicit permission to use this image was granted by the University administration (Head of the Information Dept.) Just as I uploaded the image, a notice about possible speedy deletion appeared (authomatically, I assume). I badly need a consultation for, as far as I know, no laws are violated in this case. I am open to any suggestions. Alexei Kouprianov 05:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Laws are probably not violated, but the question is if the permission you got is compatible with commons policy. Permission to use the image has to be granted to everyone, for any purpose, including modification and commercial use. Preferrably, a free license like cc-by-sa should be selected. IN any case, the permission must be documented, best by copying it to the description page and by sending it to permissions@wikimedia.org. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My photos of possibly copyrighted content

I took some photos of maps and pictures in museums which may be copyrighted. Can I upload my photos to Commons?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We try to abide by the regulations of the agency wherever possible. It all depends on the requirements of the museum in question, however, most museums have no issue with image use so long as it's properly sourced as the location. As our license requires that anyone using our images adequatly source Commons, this is likely not a problem. As far as individual items are concerned, however, they may have individual copyrights and be entirely ineligible for upload. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Commons. ShareAlike 2.0

Can I upload photos licensed under Creative Commons, ShareAlike 2.0 to Wikipedia Commons?

ie. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode Rune X2 07:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not with "nc" (non-commercial). {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} is accepted. / Fred Chess 07:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. thanks Rune X2 08:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metadata database of Japanese old photographs in Bakumatsu-Meiji Period

Am I understanding Commons:Licensing#Japan correctly when I have to recognize that none of the photos provided on this website can be uploaded here with Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto (unless the photographer is provided and his biographical data is known and he's been dead for more than 50 70 years) since even photos like this one (which has been taken before 1896) are not provided with any information on any initial publication data (if existant) prior to being published on said website? --Melanom 02:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally, yes, this appears to be so: we need to know the photographer and his/her date of death, or, for anonymous or collective works, the date of first publication. The publication date for the 1896 picture is irelevant, since it's not anonymous: the photographer was Kazumasa Ogawa. According to [8] he died in 1929, and thus his images have been PD since 1980 -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw: The website appears to claim copyright to all images [9]. I don't know if Japanese law allows for this (i.e. grants copyright for reproduction/digitalization). -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Precisely your last observation has been the point why I hesistated on uploading any pictures from there even when the photographers clearly had been dead longer than 70 years ago. I also have the feeling that Commons:Licensing#Japan and Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto slightly contradict each other or at least not talking about the same legislation... --Melanom 14:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The description leaves out information. That may or may not have been purposeful. The rules discussed appear to cover the situation in post WWII Japan. There is no reference to the interaction between the copyright law of the Imperial Japanese government and the current government of Japan.
This points to a larger issue. While the Commons:Licensing page is useful to get an overview of the laws for various nations, we need more voluminous pages that describe the details of each of these countries so that whatever facts and detail support for the overview statement that is uncovered in discussions may be recorded in one place. For example, consider the detail concerning works of the Imperial Japanese government in the following thread. We should have for example, a PD-JapaneseImperialMilitary template- if uploader can show that a photo was taken by the Japanese WWII military, (EG- the recon photos of Pearl harbor by Japanese pilots after the suprise attack) it is public domain. Photographer info is irrelevant.
-Mak 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So the bottom line here is that nobody is sure of anything? Don't we have some japanese users with legal skills who could help out here? --Melanom 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll be poking around a lot more on the sites dealing with Japanese copyright law- a lot of the stuff I have seen so far also is also in english, so it probably will not be that bad for people to understand and independently corroborate the statements made. So far though, I have only taken a cursory look at this area. -Mak 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Works of the Japanese Imperial Government

Article 6. of Japan's Old Copyright law, cited in Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto states: "Copyright in a work published or publicly performed under the name of a governmental or public agency, school, shrine or temple, association, company or any other organization as its author shall endure for thirty years from the time of such publication or public performance." [10]

The curent text only makes exception for a very restricted set of works- laws, constitution, etc. The rules for works of the Imperial government (through 1945), are all inclusive, and extend to many other public sector entities.

This should be noted in the text for Japan, since it is incorrect in its current state.

Comments? -Mak 09:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to comment on Japanese copyright law. Make any change you think is necessary. / Fred Chess 10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okey dokey. I'll take a look around and make an addition as a basis for further discussion/ fist fights. -Mak 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
From my inquires into the Swedish copyright law, I realized how difficult laws are-- there are transitional regulations and addendums; and sometimes the definitions of the laws are only possible to understand when reading through committte reports and presendenting cases. Well, but good luck ;-)
Fred Chess 08:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the ignorance and incompetence of admin Fred Chess is evident. Mak has shown that he is not a valid user. He has no deep knowledge of international Copyright contracts like user Lupo. It is useless to have pictures which are only PD in one single country. The US does'nt accept the rule of the shorter term. --Historiograf 16:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey- if you want to dig into the Japanese law and show why, based on law and caselaw that we cannot host the Japanese imperial government works on Commons, please do so. You seem instead to want to base your evaluation of truth based on an evaluation of personalities. Placing your faith in proxies is an abdication of personal responsibility. I encourage you to instead focus on law. I will be very interested in what you learn if you choose to make a contribution to the investigation on Japanese government works. In the case of PD-ItalyGov, I think the truth was borne out by a reading of the law. As David Newton put it, "Reading the translations of the law at UNESCO things seem to be fairly unambiguous."
Really, what you are promoting is not a very healthy approach. The Hero worship is not a substitute for good reasoning. Truth is derived from the validity of what is stated, not the belief in infallible authorities. It doesn't matter that Lupo is not a lawyer, the arguments he presented on the Soviet Template appear to be correct. Likewise, it doesn't matter to me that you have a considerable history of presenting positions based entirely on fallicious reasoning. I will read and consider what you say regardless of that history. If you have a valid point, I will accept it. I suggest you approach others with the same atmosphere of open minded respect. -Mak 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PD recordings on a commercial CD

I am in the process of getting this CD in the mail. I was wondering, for those who are knowledgeable in Japanese copyright law, can determine if some of the recordings on this CD can grace the servers of the Commons or not. TIA. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You would probably at least have to know when the performers died - or, if the works are definitely anonymous, when they where first published. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And from what I found out so far, it is 50 year p.m.a for Japan, so if the creator died in 1955, then it should be PD. I'll check for dates, but I know there is at least a few records I could use (I will check the actual audio when I get the CD. I figured that if I am getting stuff like this, and the Commons wants it, yall can have it). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MosNews

Shouldn't Template:MosNews include a warning that third-party images republished on their websites are copyrighted? See [11]. Lupo 08:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I clarified it a little. [12] Hope this is sufficient. / Fred Chess 13:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portraits with unclear copyright status from the U.S. Federal Government

  • The following is a continuation of the debate found here:

Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_3#Portraits_with_unclear_copyright_status_from_the_U.S._Federal_Government

This debate was moved from: w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits

Reviving discussion There has been no discussion on this for over two months now. When discussion was active, it was too often heated. I hope that a calm discussion based on the facts can follow, without insults or accusations from any quarter.

I would like to summarize the facts as I understand them. I don't think anyone disagrees with the following statements, but if you do, please say so and why.

Findings of fact:

  1. Who owns the physical painting is irrelevant. What's important is, who owns the copyright (if anyone).
  2. If an image is copyrighted, then it is not in the public domain, by definition. Put another way, an image is only in the public domain if no one holds the copyright.
  3. The U.S. government may own copyrights. If a government agency owns the copyright of a painting, then that painting is not in the public domain, as #2 above states.
  4. "Works of the United States Government" are in the public domain because they were never eligible for copyright in the first place.
  5. If an artist creates a presidential portrait under contract, then that painting is not "a work of the United States Government", and it is copyrighted (unless the painting enters the public domain for another reason).

Can we all agree on the above points? If so, it would seem to logically follow that we can only declare a presidential portrait to be PD if we can show that:

  • either the portrait is "a work of the United States Government" because it was "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" and was never eligible for copyright,
  • or the copyright holder (whether the artist or a government agency) specifically and in writing released all copyright claims to the work and therefore donated it to the public domain,
  • or else that the copyright has expired due to age.

All portraits that do not fit one of these categories should not be tagged PD. As I understand it, this applies to Image:Barbara Bush.jpg, Image:Clinton.jpg, Image:Fordportrait.gif, Image:Betty Ford.gif, Image:Elizabeth Truman.gif, Image:Lady Bird Johnson.gif, Image:Pat nixon.jpg, Image:Mamie eisenhower.gif, Image:HRC.jpg, Image:Lyndon B. Johnson - portrait.gif, Image:Hhover.gif, and Image:Grace Coolidge.gif. Incidentally, all of these images are housed on Commons, not on Wikipedia.

If you think that these images should be tagged PD, please explain which of the "findings of fact" above you disagree with. (Please comment below, rather than above, so that the discussion is not broken up.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed on all points. User:Fred Chess was responsible for closing the discussion on commons and removing the deletion tags. He should also be made aware of this discussion.--Jiang 02:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree on the findings of fact. They incorrectly summarize the situation. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to engage in this debate this week. I suggest that we ask Brad Patrick, to contact some copyright experts to give a more expert opinion. Oh yeah I think this discussion should move to, or remain on the commons. --evrik 03:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • So you disagree, but you won't say why? If you don't have time to participate in the debate, the debate can continue just fine without you. It has been several months, after all. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The findings of fact are completely correct; the paintings are not in the public domain. Evrik has clamored for us to defer until "copyright experts" comment simply because he cannot support his position, not because we need to exhume Nimmer in order to understand anything (I am an attorney, btw). The meritless public domain claims should simply be set aside so we can resolve the actual issues relevant to whether we can use these at all: 1) did the artist in fact assign the copyright to the government as part of the commission; 2) did the copyright holder (whether the artist or the government) release the paintings for public use under an express license; or 3) is there a basis for claiming that the painting has been released for public use under an implied license? Postdlf 05:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Postdlf's comments that I have "clamored" and that public domain claims are "meritless" border on being incivil and are not assuming good faith. They are ad hominem attacks. The fact that he is an attorney has no bearing on this discussion, because he may or not may not have expertise in copyright. I have more pressing issues to deal with this month, and don’t want to have to engage in this debate right now. --Evrik 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I largely agree, although I am not sure if point 5 is accurate. In any case, the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep the paintings, ie argue for their free-ness, not the opposite. A substantial amount of time has passed and no convincing proof has been provided. Therefore, they should be deleted. If in the future they are shown to be PD, they can be undeleted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't followed this case, but I agree that points 1 to 5 expressed above are correct. For confirmation on point 5, see the CENDI Copyright FAQ list, section 4.0. Lupo 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My comments on the “Findings of Fact” - when the paintings are created, it is done by a commission of an artist by a group of friends or supporters of that public official. The paintings are donated by the friends or supporters to the U.S. Government. The artists specifically release all copyright claims to the work and therefore it is donated it to the public domain. I never heard back in writing from the WH Curator about this, but my verbal conversation with him confirmed this. Here is a link to the Presidential Collection housed at the LOC.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/odmdhtml/preshome.html
--Evrik 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have still not seen any evidence for the claim that "The artists specifically release all copyright claims to the work and therefore it is donated it to the public domain." I don't believe that this is true. Quadell (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The senator and former President Clinton unveiled their National Portrait Gallery representations Monday night at a private ceremony for friends and patrons who helped underwrite part of the commissions.

There are also these news articles that describe the event, or the process:
--Evrik 18:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I fail to see how any of those news stories provide a single shred of evidence for your claim. Postdlf 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I added some comments on the assumptions above. I think that we really need to do a FOIA request on the artist commissions in order to resolve this issue since calls and letter seemed not to have brought a response. (my comments on the "Findings" are in this colorTrödel 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • 2.(However, when copyrighted item is donated/dedicated to the public domain, the artist or copyright holder is often still identified as a courtesy)
    • 3.Not necessarily - depends on whether the government agency owns the copyright because it was a "work for hire," in which case it may or may not be dedicated to the public domain upon completion depending on the circumstances; howver in most cases works for hire of the federal government are dedicated to the public domain.
    • 5.generally works performed for payment by another become copyrighted by the purchaser, unless specified otherwise (which is why you the fine print with Olan Mills, or even your school pictures says you agree that the photographer holds the copyright). So this issue depends on the agreement between the artist and the government. Which by the way could say alot of things besides that it is a work for hire.
      • I've moved your comments from where you inserted them, unsigned, right in the middle of Quadell's proposed statements,[13] which was, to be honest, poor etiquette as well as extraordinarily confusing. Your attempt to distinguish your comments from his by formatting alone didn't even show up (on my computer, at least). Postdlf 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear public domain US fed gov

I have seen these 2 pics (but other are in same situation) :

Image:1973 Yom Kippur War - Golan heights theater.jpg

Image:1973 sinai war maps.jpg

they were primary copied from this site :[14].

Licence for these pics is not easy to determinate.

Pics are licencied with this permissionBut on this site we see also this page which says "The Department of History, USMA, does not provide printed or electronic copies of these documents. Please contact the following publishers for these atlases" and also that on this page that "information presented on the USMA WWW service is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commercial purposes. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested."

I understand that :

  • It's no possible to copy document for commercial utilisation.
  • Maps licences are to control with atlases editors

If my version is correct, these pics can't stay here and are to delete.

Generally on US governemental site Licences are very clear. It's not that here Oxam Hartog 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cg-flag.gif

This image exists on en.wikipedia.org tagged as {{logo}}. It exists here tagged as {{GFDL-en}}. This not being the flag of a nation, but of an organized sporting event, I suspect this image is copyrighted and use would be under terms of fair use. If so, it should be deleted here. --Durin-en 12:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It should go. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Laetitia casta jat.jpg

This image is obviously a professionnal (printed) material. The copyright status is weird (taken from a website that no longer exists but the former webmaster says it's okay...). I think that Image:Laetitia casta br.jpg and Image:Laetitia casta bikini.jpg have the same problem : the permission is given by somebody who cannot give it. Worst is this one : Image:Laetitia casta child.jpg... It shows Laeticia Casta and here daughter. In France, such a picture might be totally illegal as children shouldn't be exposed without the parent's signed agreement. All that should be trashed. Jean-no 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corbis claiming copyright is no proof a PD license templates are invalid

  1. National Archives #80-G-16871
    According to the National Archives, this image was made by a Navy photographer. [15]
Besides the claim that NARA makes that materials on its site are in the PD, the fact that it was taken by a navy photographer makes it PD-Navy.
Yet Corbis Claims: © 2001-2006 Corbis Corporation. All visual media © by Corbis Corporation [16] (also found by searching on Pearl harbor, item #U640029ACME
It may come as some surprize to Robert McMahan Photography and The RMP Archive, because they claim copyright too [17], citing a mysterious "OMI" in the Photographer credit.
  1. National Archives # 80-G-19947
    According to Nara, this photo is PD. Ibiblio states it is Department of the Navy photo Nara 80-G-19947 http://www.ibiblio.org/memory/phi1.html
Corbis claims they own copyright. Item SF28096
  1. US Navy Photo #C-5904
    According to Nara, this is US Navy photo #C-5904.
Corbis claims they own copyright on this photo- Item BE001061
  1. National Archives #26-G-2343
    This photo was taken by Chief Photographer's Mate Robert F. Sargent. It is National archives number 26-G-2343.
Corbis claims they own copyright on this photo- Item BE001074.

Recently, one well known personality claimed that if Corbis was charging $10,000 for the right to use its images, if they claim copyright on an image, then anyone claiming otherwise (including governments) must be wrong. A rather absurd position, as the evidence points out, since if we accept this notion, we ought to delete all PD-USGOV templates and disregard US law. If law states that all of these images were created by employees of the US government while carrying out official duties and are therefore in the public domain, then we should follow the law. If a large company wishes to disregard the law, and make gratuitous claims of copyright, then we are not compelled to follow suit. Corbis has in fact given the public cause not to take their claims of copyright seriously. -Mak 09:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Mak. It would be better if the appropriate term would be use to name this: