User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg

You deleted this file a week ago. However, over a dozen different projects had over 40 uses of that image, and nothing was done in the past week to fix that issue. This is an especially glaring omission given that there was an informationally-identical replacement image of Scalia available at File:Supreme Court US 2009-2.jpg. I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia but not on here, so I'm less familiar with Commons policy and practice. But I'd think that whenever an image is deleted, its uses would be dealt with promptly. The worst result would have been to just remove the links without replacing the image; I'm at least glad to see that didn't happen. As there were still over 40 pages linking to the deleted file, and only five linking to File:Supreme Court US 2009-2.jpg, I've uploaded a copy of the latter to File:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg, the name of the deleted one, and just moved the five pages over to the new file. That should have been done a week ago. Maybe that's not considered the responsibility of the deleting admin here on Commons, but then whose responsibility would it be? Postdlf (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of individual projects to manage their own content. "That should have been done a week ago" is not correct. It's unfortunate that the copyvio was in such wide usage, but Commons is merely an archive; local users do not (and should not) make media usage decisions for other projects. Эlcobbola talk 14:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a very disappointing answer, because you seem to be communicating the view that it's everyone for themselves, rather than expressing any concern over what's best for the project(s) as a whole. One of the primary purposes of Commons is to support the various projects. And this was a very easy issue to fix once it was identified. It doesn't show up on anyone's watchlist when an image in use is deleted from Commons, so it took a chance viewing of a page that used it to notice the missing image (in that sense, maybe it would have been better to have a bot remove the image links from all projects). As it was initially only on Commons that anyone knew about the deletion, there's no question as to who was in the best position to address it. This is at least sometimes undertaken by people/resources on Commons is very clear, and there are clearly many areas in which procedures and instructions tell admins to check usage before deleting an image, such as when an image is renamed or is a duplicate. But there shouldn't need to be an express command for someone to do the right and common sense thing when they're in the best position to do it. Postdlf (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be communicating a fundamental misunderstanding of the Commons. It's truly unfortunate that you feel you know the best course of action for "over a dozen different projects". We shall have to agree to disagree, as I'm not particularly interested in hyperbole and thinly-veiled slights ("rather than expressing any concern" and "shouldn't need to be an express command for someone to do the right and common sense thing"). Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of Museum (art) images

en:User:Cinosaur recently wrote to me on my wikipedia page: "Hi Redtigerxyz. Since you asked the question regarding hi-res images in en:Themes in Avatar, I got a bit perplexed and started having second thoughts about them. Looks like there is a conflict of policies here. Both BM and V&A limit even their low resolution images to strictly non-commercial web sites. However, Wiki does not consider images released for strictly non-commercial purposes to be acceptable in its articles. Still we have lots of such images from BM, V&A and other museums being used on Wiki. May I ask you for a clarification, as well as for for an objective and impartial assessment and advice on the propriety of the use of these hi-res files that I have uploaded: File:Lord Rama with arrows.jpg, File:Krishna_dancing_on_a_lotus,_c1825.jpg, and File:Krishna_raising_Mount_Govardhan,_Bhagavata_Purana,ca_1640.jpg. I do not want myslef or Wiki to run into any issues with them." Even I have uploaded images from museum sites with PD-art. Is the PD-art rationale valid? What is the wiki policy? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please respond on my talk. Thx. Another request pertaining a English wikipedia article (Mailed here as you are more active here): I am planning a FAC for en:Iravan. Can you plz check the images in the article and their ALT text and comment about it on the article talk? Thanks again. --Redtigerxyz (talk</ span>) 05:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Elcobbola: User:Redtigerxyz asked me to copy a fragment of our correspondence regarding the use of high definition images from the above mentioned sources here. This is the relevant part:
«This is the reply to a query regarding the use of their high-def images on Wiki:

Thanks for your email and for your interest in our image service.

We do not individually check the applications, it is an automated service - you will have been sent the image even though your stated use does not meet the terms and conditions. Thus you will not be able to use the image on Wikipedia.

The image service is intended to supply medium resolution images for academic or educational publishing in low print runs, not for online use.

We generally encourage and allow low-res images on our website to be used for non-commercial purposes online, but Wikipedia excludes itself from this because it only allows images that do not retain any such claim and can be used commercially. While we encourage Wikipedia editors to reference British Museum material, the Museum does rely in part on income generated from image licensing, and we are not currently able to change our terms and conditions.

Some Wikipedians say that since the images themselves are in PD due to their age, their digitized copies cannot be under any copyright, regardless of their resolution and of the Terms and conditions that archive holders ask people to agree to prior to mailing them the images. Claims otherwise and attempts to impose restrictions on the use of such images online may constitute Copyfraud. Or are they wrong? [signed - Cinosaur]»
I would appreciate your advice on the matter. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the elaboration. I've replied at Redtigerxyz's talk page, as requested above. Эlcobbola talk 16:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pirates and copyrights

Capture of Blackbeard

I came across this striking painting (see right) when I ran into Category:Blackbeard. Its artist, easily verified, is Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (1863-1930), which means if unpublished, it would have been in public domain by 2001.

However, I found that it was registered for copyright by the artist in 1920 on p. 96 of Catalog of copyright entries: Works of art, Vol 16.

The earliest known reproduction appears to be in this book, Adventurers in the wilderness (1925), which states on p. 284: "From the painting by J. L. G. Ferris in Independence Hall, Philadelphia". I am also unable to have a full look at the contents of the book; hence, I cannot confirm if a copy of the painting was reproduced in there and if it was an authorized reproduction.

A search through the records at the US Copyright Office also reveals:

The news of Yorktown, 1781, and other photos of paintings.
Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VAu000373725 / 1996-07-19
Application Title: History paintings of Jean Leon Gerome Ferris.
Title: The news of Yorktown, 1781, and other photos of paintings.
Copyright Claimant: Virginia Historical Society
Date of Creation: 1996
Names: Ferris, Jean Leon Gerome
  Virginia Historical Society

According to US Copyright law, an unpublished work registered from 1989 to 2002 is granted extended copyright protection.

The rights of this painting is now managed by Bettman/Corbis, as mentioned in the credits for Blackbeard, the Pirate King.

First, does the 1920 registration qualify as publication?
Was photography at Independence Hall allowed? If so, does that mean the painting was published on the year it was hung there?
If the 1925 book did reproduce the painting, does it then qualify as publication? If so, does that mean 95 years of protection since the copyrights of the book and its contents has been renewed in accordance with the law?
Does Virginia Historical Society now have the copyright (acting as Ferris' appointed authority) over this painting? Or were they trying to copyright photos of the works; in that case, does en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (ruled in 1999) overrule their attempt?

Looking forward to reading your thoughts. Jappalang (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Does the 1920 registration qualify as publication?
Yes and no, depending on what you really mean by the question. While publication and registration are entirely different notions (unpublished works could and can be registered), the act of registration did "start the clock" (create an initial 28 year term), just as publication did. So, while they're not the same, the implications are the same for determining copyright duration, which I think is what you're really asking. From United States Copyright Office Circular 1 (07.2008):
Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. (emphasis mine)
Of course, works published or registered before 1.1.1923 are now public domain.
  • Was photography at Independence Hall allowed? If so, does that mean the painting was published on the year it was hung there?
I'm not familiar with the practices of Independence Hall. Publication wasn't a defined term until the 1976 Act; although hanging it would likely not constitute publication under the "modern" statute, case law suggests the notion that, if there was no copyright notice and no measures to prevent photography, it may be considered general publication (see, for example, Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago and American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister).
  • If the 1925 book did reproduce the painting, does it then qualify as publication? If so, does that mean 95 years of protection since the copyrights of the book and its contents has been renewed in accordance with the law?
These are probably moot in light of the above. It would be publication iff the book was placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority. As the Blackbeard work was registered before 1.1.1923, however, it is now public domain regardless of the book's status. (Registration in 1920 would create an initial term expiring in 1948, with possible renewal until 1976. The Copyright Act of 1976 [effective January 1, 1978] extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, so this work would not have been eligible for the pursuant extension to 75 years [and/or later to 95 years]).
  • Does Virginia Historical Society now have the copyright (acting as Ferris' appointed authority) over this painting?
I suppose I'm not familiar enough with the circumstances to offer a wholly informed comment (including whether "and other photos of paintings" includes the Blackbeard work; other Ferris works, if published/registered after 1.1.1923, could possibly be controlled by the Virginia Historical Society). My supposition would be that Bridgeman v. Corel would indeed void copyright claims to slavish derivatives of the Blackbeard work, as the original work appears to have been public domain since at least 1976 per its 1920 registration. Эlcobbola talk 20:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... I sort of get it. In that case, is it right to say that {{PD-US}} should change its " where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923." to " where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication or registration occurred prior to January 1, 1923."? Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The catch is the word "often", which is of course quite different than, say, "always". As it's currently written, that license actually applies to every work that's public domain in the U.S., regardless of the reason therefor. It's always puzzled me that this vague template hasn't been deprecated in favor of the numerous specific ones. I suppose one could remove "often" when adding "or registered", but this tag is currently being used on images in the public domain for reasons other than pre-1.1.1923 publication. I think {{PD-1923}}, however, could certainly stand to be updated. This would also make it consistent with the Hirtle chart, the support for most US-related tags, which does indeed divide works into "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S." and "Never Published, Never Registered Works". Эlcobbola talk 13:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

License tag to use for NIST-released materials

Elcobbola, may ask your advice on the appropriate license tag for this image on 9/11 made by NY Police Department but issued under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Institute of Standards and Technology? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No tag would be appropriate, as the image should actually be deleted (from the Commons, anyway; non-free use on another project may or may not be supported). Greg Semendinger is a member of the NYPD, which is not a federal agency. The NIST license, or PD-US-Gov for that matter, only applies to works authored by federal employees in the course of performance of their duties. The Freedom of Information Act deals with disclosure (i.e. access to information) and has nothing to do with intellectual property rights. The FoIA does not transfer, invalidate, or otherwise address copyright. See, for example, the Department of Justice's discussion here. This is a fair use image. Эlcobbola talk 18:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Sexual content

As someone who previously participated in a past discussion regarding this page, you may be interested in the new discussion taking place. I have endeavoured to send a message to everyone previously involved; if I have missed anyone please let them know as well. Roux (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Antonin scalia

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg , You remove the old version of the picture, Would you email the old version to me ? --Doublewing (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that you indicated at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg" that the image should be deleted as it is not the work of the US Federal Government and has not been properly licensed to the Commons by the copyright holder. However, the image does not appear to have been deleted yet. Can you go ahead and do so? — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
@Doublewing: I note Chaser provided a link at your Village Pump query. I'm not able to send attachments through the email user function, so the link seems more expeditious and convenient (as opposed to requiring me to email you, have you to email me back, and then me email again), but I can still email it, if you would like.
@Jacklee: the copyvio image was deleted (see the log) at the time of closure. The current image is a derivative of File:Supreme_Court_US_2009.jpg and was uploaded by another user to remedy an issue with broken images (the Commons delinker bot failed to run). Эlcobbola talk 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Confusing. Perhaps a note should be left on the image's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg

Hello!

Something is worng in this DR: You stated that this file is deleted, but it still exists on Commons. Please correct that. Thanks in advance. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It may behoove you to read the log. Эlcobbola talk 12:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yo no sabía hablar español! (Google translated)

Sorry to bother you again. Can you take a look at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Status of FoP in Cuba? and determine if I have Commons:Freedom of panorama#Cuba correct? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's never a bother. I agree with the interpretation of the law, but made some corrections to the translation. Note, in particular, that the "any" the mechanized translation found in una obra de arte de cualquier tipo expuesta permanentemente en sitio público is cualquier, which refers to tipo (type), not to sitio público (public place). Эlcobbola talk 15:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought about this overnight and have posed an question on the talk page. The translation is fine in terms of language, but I have a concern about the interpretation. Эlcobbola talk 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me with something?

Hi, User talk:Rlevse suggested I try you for an answer on this...just wondering if you could help me with something in relation to an image I contacted a Flickr user about releasing? His reply was:

Hi-- This was taken in a parade and of course (you don't a model release during a parade) and i know it can be used for editorial but I was really wondering what it meant by commercial in the contract and I basically wanted to make sure it was correct. I would not want to see it advertising a product somewhere. Can you please tell me what it meant under the commercial part...otherwise...I would have love for it to be released to Wikipedia but I just wanted to make sure that it was just editorial and not for advertising or such since it was in public and a model release was not given. I wouldn't want to get sued over it or anything. Thanks!

And I'm ashamed to admit this is like gobblegook for me, I haven't figured out licensing to this extent, I've just been sending them the basic templates etc. Can you advise me as to what I should reply with... or if you don't know, where I could get help with this? Thank you so much! PageantUpdater talkcontribs 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi PageantUpdater. The Flickr user is expressing uncertainty about what "commercial usage" entails. Forgive me if I'm explaining what you already know, but Wikipedia/Commons/etc are free content. The "free" in "free content", of course, means libre (free from restrictions), not gratis (free from monetary cost). One condition of free content, therefore, is no restriction on commercial use. For example, someone could download a Creative Commons or GFDL-licensed image from the Commons, publish it as a book cover, and derive profit from the sale of that book - all without need to inform or remunerate the image's author (depending on the specific license, however, there may be attribution and licensing limitations). To speak to the Flickr user's concern "I would not want to see it advertising a product somewhere", this is something that must be allowed for an image to be hosted on the Commons. A free license would indeed (and must) allow an advertiser to use the image on a poster, billboard, commercial, etc. It sounds as if the Flickr user is not willing to release the image(s) under an acceptable license (i.e. free enough). Advertising must be allowed. Эlcobbola talk 12:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and apologies for not picking up the accidental double post. You were right in assuming that I did already know that it was free as in uncopyrighted but the fuller explanation helps me a lot! Cheers. PageantUpdater talkcontribs 13:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Enquiry on a copyright entry (US)

Hi Elcobbola, could you help me with this? In this Catalog of Copyright Entries (1957), I find:

TERHUNE, ALBERT PAYSON.
Lad, a dog. Adapted and abridged by Felix Sutton. Illus. by William Bartlett and Kathleen Elgin. Grosset & Dunlap. Appl. author: Grosset & Dunlap, Inc., employer for hire of Felix Sutton, William Bartlett and Kathleen Elgin. © E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc.; 3Sep57: A301557.

Note that Bartlett's and Elgin's entries tell us to refer to Terhune's. Who owns the copyright to the illustrations in the book? I know the text is still copyrighted to Terhune (it is "licensed" for this abridged version) but the entry in the Catalog for Copyright Entries seem confusing for the abridged book here... If this abridged version with its original cover (by Bartlett) is copyrighted to Grosset & Dunlap, then the illustration would be in the public domain (no renewal records in external Copyright Renewal databases or in that of the US Copyright Office); however, if a cover printed by Grosset & Dunlap is copyrighted to E. P. Dutton & Co. instead, then it becomes a royal mess (since most of Dutton's copyright renewals of Lad are in packages with other titles)...

Oh yes, the 1957 cover is this one, which has been reprinted later in 1971/74. From what I observe, the later covers had a price tag ($1.99) in the upper right corner while the 57 had none. So... is this cover in the public domain? Jappalang (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The catalogue's introduction (page vii) indicates that the entity succeeding the © symbol is the copyright claimant. My reading of the entry, then, would be that E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc. (since acquired by Penguin Group) should be assumed to be the copyright holder. (As the entry is for the book, it may be possible that Grosset & Dunlap - also now Penguin Group - holds/held a separate copyright on the cover, but there simply isn't enough information/specificity in the entry to make that determination.) In the interest of the precautionary principle and WP:V's notion that verifiability, not truth, be the threshold (I assume this question arises due to Lad: a Dog), it seems most appropriate to assume E. P. Dutton & Co. is the claimant to the entirety of the work (prose and images) given the available information. Do we know anything about relationship between the two publishers? Now, whether or not it's PD regardless of copyright holder, I can't say as I haven't looked into whether the copyright was renewed (and my apologies for that, I'm preparing for extended travel and my time is thus limited). Эlcobbola talk 13:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It did not arise from the FAC (I just sort of wandered into the article and after a bit of searching for info on one of the images, got engrossed in finding out whatever verifiable public domain images there for the article). As far as I can tell, Grosset and Dunlap are two bootleg publishers who turned legitimate.[1][2][3] Most of their publications are reprints, the pages bought from the original publishers and repackaged under them (with new covers perhaps? See the second and third link). E. P. Dutton and Company are a legitimate publishers of original stories from the start.[4] I doubt there is some sort of direct connection/ownership between them (more like a business relationship; G&D enters into an agreement with EPD to reprint their books). What I know is that after searching through the Copyright Renewal databases and the US Copyright Office is that Dutton has renewed the copyrights of the 1926 and 1959 copies of Lad (including their illustrations by Robert L. Dickey and Sam Savitt, respectively). The other renewal records of Lad do not state their illustrations. These records are for distribution rights (for movies), the photoplay book, and "general packages" (in which Lad and many other titles are bundled under a record). Sorry for disturbing your packing. Hope you have a good trip! Jappalang (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, after doing some more research, I decided to take the plunge and upload it as File:Lad, A Dog (illustrated by William Bartlett, 1957).jpg. My reasoning is as follow, and I hope if you have the time to read this, you might spot any flaws I made.
On a hunch, I decided to see if the US Copyright Office's database would have records for renewals for other 1957 entries. I used Louis Terkel's Giants of Jazz, which was registered under A298284. His copyright is renewed and interestingly, listed as A00000298284. I searched again using the ID padded with 0's and the hit came up again. I would not be able to find it with a non-0-padded ID.
Moving on, the Lad: A Dog illustrated by Bartlett/Elgin is registered under A301557. I searched for A301557 and A00000301557, and found no renewal records. The only renewal (copyright) records of Lad: A Dog are for 1959's version with Sam Savitt's illustrations (A00000408336), 1927's with Robert L. Dickey's art (A00000949989), movie rights, audio books, and photoplay.
As such, I reason that the copyright for Bartlett's illustration was not renewed (for whatever reasons), and it is verifiably safe to upload here. Is my thinking and action sound? Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The logic doesn't seem unreasonable to me, although I'm somewhat apprehensive as to whether the 1957 registration truly encompassed the pictorial cover in addition to the literary work. It likely did. Do we happen to know whether the 1927 and 1959 editions have the same prose, verbatim? In any case, however, when I ask myself whether I think this would survive a deletion request, the answer is that I believe it would. So, yes, I'd expect it to be safe. Эlcobbola talk 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your "vote" of confidence. To allay your concern, the text in the 1959 version is different (it is an abridged form) from that of 1926. However, I believe the 1926 copyright is specifically registered to protect Dickey's copyright. The text of the 1927 book is the same as that for 1919's, which was renewed in 1947 (hence, why the 1947 copyright appears in later adaptations). As stated before, the 1957 Catalog has entries for the artists (Elgin and Bartlett) that specifically state to refer to the quoted entry above. Similarly, Savitt (1959) has a specific entry under his name that calls to refer to Terhune's entry.[5] The 1926 did not have a specific entry for Dickey but I believe it most likely that the Copyright Office changed the format or classification before 1957 (since 1957 and 59 have individual entries for artists). Jappalang (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Picassa web

Can upload option from Picassa web be incorporated in "Upload file" like flickr ("It is someone else's work from Flickr")? If an image from Picassa is to be uploaded, what channel can be used? Is license of this image [6] (CC 3.0; I think flickr uses CC 2.0 generic) OK for wikicommons/wikipedia upload?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the formatting decisions regarding the upload form to answer the first question, although I don't imagine a Picassa option would be precluded on technical grounds (perhaps it's not a common enough source to warrant special consideration). That would be a question for the village pump (COM:VP) or the upload form talk page (Commons talk:Upload). The linked image is licensed as CC-by 3.0, so I don't see why it wouldn't be acceptable; it could be uploaded with the main form, just ensure that the author is credited and that a source link to the page referencing the license is provided. Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)