Commons talk:Licensing

Shortcuts

• COM:CQ
• CT:L

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to an archive (Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 29 in October 2010). Sections without timestamps are not archived.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Archived discussions

By date

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

(the dates are very approximate because some debates dragged on for months, while others became inactive very shortly)

• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive Ancient (Up to October 2004)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 1 (Oct. 2004 – March 2006)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 2 (March 2006 – June 2006 )
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 3 (May 2006 – June 2006)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 4 (July 2006 – August 2006)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 5 (September 2006 – March 2007 )
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_6 (March 2007 – May 2007)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_7 (May 2007 – July 2007)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_8 (July 2007 – October 2007)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_9 (October 2007 – February 2008)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_10 (February 2008 – March 2008)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_11 (March 2008 – May 2008)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_12 (May 2008 – July 2008)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_13 (July 2008 – August 2008)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_14 (August 2008 – September 2008)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_15 (October 2008 – November 2008)
• Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_16 (November 2008 – January 2009)

• ...

• Some principally important discussions are archived in separate pages. There is no point in arguing on the archived pages, because few people will read it. If you wish to dispute an archived page, you should begin a new discussion on this page and provide a link to the archive in question.

(these headers are preserved in case someone has linked to them)

Against DRM 1.0

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/ADRM

Review of license templates

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Review of license templates

U.S. patents

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/U.S. patents

Ecoport copyleft

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Ecoport copyleft

Museums Bilder

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Museums Bilder (in German)

Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed

Which countries' copyright laws determine copyright status?

archived as Commons_talk:Licensing/Which copyright law applies?

Still active discussions

Template protection after review

There are many country specific copyright templates on commons that need review and should be protected thereafter. Many images on commons use these templates and changing something in the template like accidentally adding a hot cat category would affect all of these and would require mass purging for all images. We should have a review department reviewing each available template and after discussion protecting it. We should discuss the layout of PD templates: Should they include why they are PD in the USA or should this be handled in another template like {{PD-Egypt}} and {{PD-Egypt-1996}}. With the URAA laws the copyright laws of a country doesn't mean that much without an explanation on why they are PD in USA. Something like {{PD-China}} doesn't work for commons because it doesn't specify why it's PD USA. And should there be templates for country specific templates for each case like found in Category:Egypt-related tags? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2009 April 23 (UTC)

A big mess

The icon at right is used in dozens of derivative images on Commons and on thousands of Wikimedia pages across numerous projects. Here's where the graphic comes from:

The clock hands and colors come from:

• File:Current_event_marker.png - created by User:Denelson83 - licensing is "All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." (presumably as a derivative of the Wikinews logo) - no licensing information is given for the clock.

The frame of the clock comes from:

• File:Stock_alarm.svg - created by David Vignoni (Nuvola) - licensed GNU LGPL (which is somewhat meaningless for images)

The two were combined together by User:Davidgothberg who also added the 4 tick marks. No specific licensing is given for his work.

The resulting graphic was licensed GNU LGPL, presumably with neither Denelson83 nor David Göthberg claiming copyright over their contributions. This icon has been combined with numerous other graphics—some public domain, some CC-by-sa, some GPL—and the resulting derivative works have been licensed under any license or combination you can imagine.

A few questions:

1. Who should be given credit for the red clock icon at right?
2. Who owns copyright in the image?
3. Is GNU LGPL a valid license for this image?
4. Can this graphic be combined with CC-by-sa graphics?
5. If so, what should the derivatives be licensed under?

Kaldari (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The GNU LGPL is good for computer code, and SVG is computer code. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Current_event_marker.png has to be deleted. Because the original clock is available only under the LGPL, the derivative work must also be released under the LGPL; but because the Wikinews logo is copyright WMF and they won't license it under the LGPL, it cannot be licensed under the LGPL. However, User:Denelson83 may be willing to upload and license the clock alone under the LGPL, if he is asked to do so - in which case any derivative work which removes the Wikinews logo and also released under the LGPL could remain. Any derivative work not released under the LGPL must be released under the LGPL by its original uploader, or else must be deleted (if they waive rights to any modifications, or if their modifications are ineligible for copyright, we can update the license ourselves). Dcoetzee (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is why simple icon graphics should never be licensed under strong-copyleft. They should ideally be Public Domain like the Tango icons. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Following up on this, how do you know the frame of the clock came from File:Stock_alarm.svg? It looks totally different. If it was based on the prior version, that version has been lost. This will make deleting it quite difficult... Dcoetzee (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here. What is wrong in generating a new image- from just looking at the image, but not refering to the code- and then overwriting the file, keeping the same file name? It looks like a two hour Inkscape task. Then there is cat full of clock icons.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can safely say, that this clock is PD-ineligible. I fail to see how this should pass the Threshold of originality. Btw: At the right we have a very similar clock as PD-ineligible.Amada44  ^{talk to me} 13:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's wrong, in both cases. Pixel images can be PD-ineligible; all but the most trivial vector images are copyrightable computer code that's not PD-ineligible even if what they display is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

right, so open in Illustrator, save as svg and then open in Inkscape and save as plain svg should remove any copyrightable coding. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 13:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

and the image above is a png. I don't see how you want to apply the svg 'computer code' there. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 13:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try again. Do we just want a replacement image that looks identical to the one above? If that was done in Inkscape with no reference to the svg code of the one above would that be acceptable? Were that to be done- what licence tag would it need to carry? --ClemRutter (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I brought this to village pump. Esp. the point about all svg images contain copyrightable code needs broader discussion. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 10:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that got off-topic fast. So does anyone have any answers to any of my original questions? Kaldari (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Text published by www.geograph.org.uk

www.geograph.org.uk/photo/733198 has a lot of useful text. Does the CC licence here apply to the image- or the text as well? I could certainly use it to do a cut and paste into a Category description- even before this image gets transfered. Any opinions? --ClemRutter (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no knowledge about the licence covering the text but any prose found on geograph will probably not be considered as reliable as it is added by uploaders without any source information, so may not even be usable, even if it is freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding the references and checking it is really no problem- it is just the concept of cut and pasting the text that interests me!?--ClemRutter (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The text is CC-BY-SA too. The terms aren't as clear everywhere as we'd like, but Ticket:2010082610008795 establishes that this is their intent since this situation came up at Wikipedia a few months ago. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S. government building image

Hello, I am double checking image sources in advance of a GA review. File:Federal Bureau of Prisons Central office.jpg is an official photo of a U.S. federal government office from the official government website. However, the website does not identify the photographer or date the photo. What is the opinion of the copyright status of such an image? KimChee (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To be conservative one could argue that the webmaster for the government site may have either licensed this photo from a third party, or even yanked it off the web. There's no evidence it was taken by a federal employee in the course of their duties. However, I don't think it would be deleted if put up for review - it's from a federal government website and doesn't turn up on Tineye or anything, so it's reasonable to assume it's okay. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the TinEye suggestion. This was helpful. KimChee (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a difference between retaining tbe image on commons and meeting the GA review criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.140.100 (talk • contribs)

The solution is to assume that a USGov employee did it unless you have evidence to the contrary.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement and brochures published between 1978 and 1989

I have been uploading advertisement and brochures that were published before 1978 without a copyright notice. The rules in the United States are simple, no notice no copyright. For material published before 1989 the rules are a bit more complicated but most advertisements and brochures published without notice are in public domain.

The US Copyright Office Circular 3, "Copyright Notice", explains the procedure on the corrective action to restore a copyright on material published without a proper notice. There are two steps (page 5):

• The work must have been registered before it was published in any form or before the omission occurred, or it must have been registered within five years after the date of publication without notice; and
• The copyright owner must have made a reasonable effort to add the notice to all copies or phonorecords that were distributed to the public in the United States after the omission was discovered.

The registration would be relativity easy to do and easy to confirm with the online copyright records. However it would be very difficult to add the notice to advertisements and brochures after they were distributed to the public. The second requirement probably discouraged companies from trying to regain a copyright on sales material (if they even cared about it.) They were trying to make money by selling their trademarked Widget; the ads were of no monetary value.

Microsoft Windows 1.0 brochure, 1986 -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

After reading the above, I think the second clause is that the material distributed after they discovered the error had a correction. Nevermind. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Kristofer Janson.jpg

What is a proper licence for "File:Kristofer Janson.jpg"? {{PD-old-70}}, which I've temporarily applied to the image? The subject of the photograph died in 1917, so it seems likely that 70 years have passed since the death of the photographer (currently unidentified) – assuming the photographer was 21 years old and the photograph was taken in 1917, the photographer would be 114 years old this year. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Reread your numbers; if the photographer would be 114 this year, for him to have been dead 70 years would imply that he died before he was 44. US copyright law gives special protection to using a work 120 years old that may still be copyrighted if the life of the author is not available. Each discussion on Commons on the subject seems to start de novo, but I would say that assuming anything less than 100 years would be unrealistic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my brain took a holiday. I forgot that the rule is 70 years after the author's death. I guess the image should be nominated for deletion? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the image with "no source". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If a source is what you're missing, then it isn't too hard to find something on the net, for example [1]. And I think this qualifies as a simple photograph by Norwegian standards, which would that the much less strict criteria of {{PD-Norway50}} would do. As he lived in Minneapolis for 12 years, it might not be a Norwegian photo at all, for all I know, though. {{PD-1923}} might apply for US copyright status, but some sort of publication info would be nice. Peter Alberti (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, we don't have any information about the photographer at the moment. Has anyone tried to identify him or her – if not, how do we know if the photographer is "unknown"? There is very little information at "Commons:Licensing#Norway" about "simple photographs" – it just says "Photos that are not considered artistic works (i.e. snapshots) are protected until no less than 15 years after the photographer's death and no less than 50 years after publication". However, without knowing when the photographer died, we cannot determine if 15 years have elapsed since his or her death. As for the possibility of {{PD-1923}} applying, we also do not know when the photograph was first published. Are we prepared to assume that it was? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is another photograph of Janson in a 1913 book he wrote here; it is much later photo than this one. There is no author listed other than Janson; that would seem to be both {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. This would seem to be an 1800s photo... odds are it was published during those years, but more information would be better. It does appear on the cover of this 1976 book; but can't see the contents to see if there is any further info on it. Odds are very high that it is at least PD in the US, but it would be good to at least get some publication info. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Another photo here; 1901 book. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So ... are we happy applying {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} to the image? Otherwise, it's going to be deleted for having no source. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that (based on the other photos I linked) this photo seems to be from the 1870s or 1880s.. probably 1890 at the latest (120 or more years old), I may be OK with just leaving PD-old. A 1917 date is an entirely different matter, but this was clearly a much earlier photograph. I don't like applying PD-EU-no-author-disclosure unless we can see there was no author mentioned on the original publication, of which we have no information about. I would just upload the larger version at this page (as mentioned above) and use that as a source I think. It seems it is not some recently-discovered photo, as it was apparently used on the cover of this 1976 U.S. book. That book's content was actually republished in board postings here (second half starting here); the author mentions obtaining a photograph "taken in the early years of their stay in America" ... wonder if this is that one. The book [http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/norway/2004-07/1089824635 mentions people selling photographs of him too, and of Janson having photographs of himself and giving out copies on occasion. But, the bibliography is not in those postings, and I don't see any photo credits mentioned in the parts that were. I'd prefer having more information, but this does seem to be an 1880s photo, most likely, so it may be a bit much to delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, do you want to upload the higher resolution image, update the licence, remove the "no source" tag, and add a note summarizing the evidence you have marshalled that the photograph was most likely taken in the 1880s? That will resolve the issue. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Common sense

File:1995 John Lennon..jpg

public domain or copyvio?

No matter what the laws of Azerbaijan say, I'm sure that the image at right is a copyright infringement. The drawing is copyrighted by John Lenon's estate, was first published in the US, and is clearly prominent enough to fail de minimus. I nominated it for deletion and was overwhelmingly defeated. Am I off my rocker here? Kaldari (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I think we should assume good faith and presume that the Azerbaijan authorities obtained a licence from the rights holders to use the images on the stamp. However, it seems to me that even if the Azerbaijan authorities did so, the fact that official publications of the Azerbaijan government are in the public domain certainly does not mean that any copyrighted works in such publications used under licence automatically enter the public domain as well. It depends on the terms of their licence. Therefore, although the design of the stamp may be in the public domain as far as Azerbaijan is concerned, it could well be that we cannot host an image of it in the Commons because there are non-free works embodied in it.

Here is an example for comparison: I want to use an image of George Clooney to sell coffee that I make, so I contact the copyright holder of a photograph of Clooney and pay for a licence to use the photograph on a billboard (and for no other purpose). I then take a photograph of the billboard, the copyright of which I own, and purport to release it into the public domain. I think this amounts to an unauthorized use of the Clooney photograph in breach of the licence I obtained to use the photograph on the billboard. So, my question is, do we assume that the Azerbaijan authorities had permission from the rights holders to release the caricature and photograph of Lennon into the public domain, or do we require further evidence (and delete the image if such evidence is not forthcoming)? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue is tying me up in knots! On further reflection, it seems to me it may be fair to regard the rights holders as being fully aware that their copyrighted Lennon images would be released on to public domain stamps which might be reproduced by the Azerbaijan authorities (e.g., put on websites and in catalogues to encourage sales). However, when licensing the images did the rights holders contemplate that images of the stamps would be circulated on the Internet by third parties? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is still copyrighted in the U.S., for sure, regardless of the situation in Azerbaijan. The photo and the drawing would be copyrightable most everywhere else as well, as those were not first published in Azerbaijan. It could be deleted under the "free in the U.S." part of the policy, though that has been ignored at times. Not sure this is a good one to ignore though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the "free in the U.S." part of the policy is – care to explain or point me to a guideline? But I agree that the image should be renominated for deletion. It seems rather unlikely that the rights holders gave the Azerbaijan authorities a licence to release the images into the public domain. If there isn't any evidence of such a licence, I would incline on the side of caution and vote "delete". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

He means the part which says "public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work" (third paragraph). The image should indeed be deleted unless there's evidence that it's in the public domain in the US as well. Jafeluv (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I reopened this, it was a non-admin closure and clearly not enough discussion happened. Looks like a case of over-eager keeping. Hekerui (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Over-eager keeping"?? I had closed this in January, after about half a year. DRs need to be closed at some point. (If stamps are PD in the source country, I cannot see what problem they would be in the US.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. don't follow the rule of the shorter term and content needs to be in the public domain in the U.S. to be hosted here. And there are questions whether Azerbaijan is the source country at all. None of this was considered in your non-admin closure, so I relisted the discussion. Hekerui (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously an Azerbeijani stamp. The lengths of copyright periods in different countries are not relevant for this case. And it is because so few admins do any work on DRs that there are these very long backlogs. This was no over-eager closure, and your reverting it ten months later was not constructive. The proper way would have been to make a new DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The photo and the drawing are pre-existing works and are not Azerbaijani; they have a separate pre-existing copyright. I presume that Azerbaijan's government has a license to use them on this stamp, within Azerbaijan, but that almost certainly doesn't extend to the rest of the world, and doesn't make it "free". It may well widen the fair use case, but I really can't see it being PD in the U.S. (or really anywhere). Agreed that a separate DR could have been opened -- don't see anything all that wrong with the closure, and this isn't an open-and-shut case anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to call it over-eager keeping; it certainly wasn't going to get more discussion back in the archives.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Chollet 9.11.2010 2a.jpg

What's the better way? The data doesn't show, that the auther and the uploader are the same person, so it is not sure, that the license is valid. Is it better to ask the uploader for a OTRS or is a delete-request the better way? -- Badener  18:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest leaving an urgent message on the uploader's talk page asking him or her for OTRS confirmation. If there's no response, the image will eventually be deleted as it has already been tagged as a copyright violation. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the same problem. -- Badener  16:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Anonymous-EU

{{Anonymous-EU}} claims PD for anonymous works older than 70 years; while this is correct for EU law, such works made after 1926 might not be PD in the US because of URAA. This has been mentioned on the talk page of the license, but did not generate much discussion. --Tgr (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Many of the works at Commons are in copyright in the US, usually due to the URAA. There has historically been a lack of concern about this, no matter what Commons:Licensing says.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There has been a fair amount of discussion, though not recently. Best "solution" so far has been to add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} so we can easily find such works if it is ever decided differently. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a note to the tag advising to add this tag to media with copyright restored under the URAA (generally anything published 1926 or later, but it varies by nation a bit). Dcoetzee (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

True. In fact there are many countries in Europe where the line is not 1926... I think it's most of them actually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagging with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} for works definitely not free in the U.S. is a good idea but at the official policy needs to be enforced and such works need to be deleted. Hekerui (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ukranian photographs

Your input at "File talk:Child affected by malnutrition 1921-1923 Famine in Soviet Russia.jpg" is welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Family photographs

See "File:Norman Paine.jpg". I seem to recall we have a special copyright tag for images like these. Anyone know what it is? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We have {{PD-heirs}}. However, that tag is for the (sole) heir of the photographer not the heir of the subject or a photo of someones Grandfather, so not appropriate here. The whole thing of I, the copyright holder of this work[...] with this upload is faulty. The special tag for this image is imo {{subst:nsd}}, the coypright holder is not sufficiently explained in the source and author information. --Martin H. (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the one I was thinking of. Yes, I did think that there would be a problem with the image since there's no evidence that the copyright in the photograph passed to the grandson, even if it was owned by the subject of the photograph in the first place (of which there is no evidence). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Classical music files

Dear colleagues, I am involved in negotiations between one of the WMF chapters and a tertiary music institution concerning a possible collaboration to encourage the uploading of copyright-free files of high-quality classical music recordings by students. While most recordings might be of music from pre-20th-century times, there will inevitably be applications to include more recently composed works.

Copyright is a thorny issue: there's the composer, the publisher of the score, the performer(s), and the audio engineer(s). We need to create a set of simple guidelines so that the institution and the students can choose works for which there will be no copyright issue. The recordings would be made in a jurisdiction with the same copyright laws as the US in this respect. The student performer(s) (and student audio engineer(s)?) would provide copyright releases to participate in the scheme.

We would be most appreciate if experts here can respond to these questions:

1. Is the date of the composer's death relevant (i.e., up to but not after 1940, seventy years ago)? Or is it the date of composition (hard to determine sometimes, although it would be on the boundary in very cases)—or the date of the first publication of the score? If a work was first published in, say, 1934, is that in itself enough to be certain there are no copyright issues? (Again, whether the composer is still alive doesn't matter, does it, if there's a publisher? I see uploads of music files on Commons, say, of a Stravinsky work written in the 1920s/1930s. He died in 1971. Boosey and Hawkes still publishes the score.)
2. Since new editions of scores almost never make substantive changes to the notation, we presume they are not at issue.
3. Is the 70-year-rule applied from the actual date of uploading? That is, if a file is uploaded 14 June 2011, does the 70 years go back to 15 June 1941?
4. Do all student performers and student audio engineers involved in a performance need to sign, somehow? One of them would presumably upload, or could the institution do that for them? Do we need to upload boilerplate emails from all concerned (that would be a nuisance, but is viable if necessary)? Presumably electronic signatures would not be required, in that case (might be a hassle). We plan to restrict ensembles to two performers at this stage (e.g., solo, or soloist and keyboard accompanist).
5. If a contemporary composer provides an email releasing copyright for an unpublished performance, would that be enough? If the work is published, presumably the composer has signed away the rights to the publisher, and would be irrelevant to such a copyright release. Then, I think we would exclude from the scheme for the sake of practicality.
6. Should publication details be provided on the description page?
7. What kind of licence(s) is/are most suitable? We envisage the freest possible, but the students might be attracted to the notion of insisting they be acknowledged in subsequent usage. I think we would prefer to be utterly free about allowing the files to be modified for artistic or even commercial purposes. Can we insist that the collaborative scheme between WMF and the institution be acknowledged?
8. Are there any issues we haven't mentioned?

Thanks in advance. Tony1 (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There's lots of questions there, not all of which are trivial; I'll only touch on a few. I don't know what you mean by "a jurisdiction with the same copyright laws as the US in this respect"--the only such jurisdiction is the US. US copyright law is a beast unto itself. If done in the US, the law demands that the work have been published before 1923, or published before 1964 and various arcane facts be true about it. I.e. published before 1923. Commons, in an attempt to be more world-wide, also concerns itself with the law in the nation of origin; presumably that would mean in this case, that European composers would need to be dead 70 years. (Exact numbers can be found on COM:L, as not all European nations are life+70, and other nations range all over the spectrum.) For American composers, death date would be irrelevant. (This might not be true if you're recording outside the US.) 70 years is from January 1st of whatever year it is; if the file is uploaded in 2011, the author would have to have died before 1941.

License-wise, there's really three options IMO; CC-Zero, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA. CC-Zero would put it into the public domain, CC-BY demands attribution, and CC-BY-SA demands attribution and that derivative works also be licensed under the CC-BY-SA and thus can be copied freely. There are other licenses you could use, you could make your own, but unless your lawyer is getting fussy, it's best to go with one of those. (And if your lawyer is getting fussy, we could get the contact information for someone at the Creative Commons--Lessig, maybe--who could hopefully convince him that a CC license really is a good idea.) It is a requirement that any Commons license permit virtually unlimited derivative works to be made and for commercial use to permitted.

So back at you; what jurisdiction are we talking about exactly? If you feel sensitive about giving out exact location, the nation will be plenty.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I assume that this tertiary institution is in the US? This is relevant, because it determines which jurisdiction's laws are relevant. Some general thoughts off the top of my head:

• Yes, it is important to know when the composer died, because in many jurisdictions copyright in musical works lasts 70 years from the end of the year in which the composer died. (This also answers your third question. It is probably best not to count backwards from the time of uploading but forwards from the end of the year in which the composer died.)
• A musicologist who has done extensive research into reconstructing an incomplete piece of music that is in the public domain may be entitled to copyright in the reconstructed work, at least in the UK: see Hyperion Records Limited v. Sawkins [2005] EWCA Civ 565, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3281, Court of Appeal (England and Wales).
• It sounds like the plan is for the institution to assist in preparing new recordings, which would then be published for the first time in the Commons. If that's not the case, and the intention is to use already-published recordings, then the publishers of the sound recordings must license them to the Commons.
• Performers are most likely entitled to a performance right (which is distinct from copyright), so they should be requested to transfer this right to the Commons or provide a suitable free licence.
• I don't see why any release is required from an audio engineer. As far as I am aware, under most copyright regimes, audio engineers are not regarded as authors of copyrightable works.
• Concerning music by living composers, it depends on whether the composer has transferred his or her copyright to the publisher or merely licensed it. In the first scenario, the Commons has to seek a licence from the publisher since the composer no longer holds the copyright in the music. In the second scenario, it depends on the terms of the licence between the composer and the publisher. If it is an exclusive licence, the composer may not grant a further licence to the Commons, so the publisher would have to be approached. If it is a non-exclusive licence, the composer may licence the use of his or her music to the Commons. And, yes, a clearly worded e-mail would suffice.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys, thanks heaps for your replies, which I haven't quite digested yet. The country of origin would be Australia; since the free-trade agreement struck in 2007 with the US, I believe copyright law is very similar (except we have no fair use, which is irrelevant for this purpose anyway). There's certainly a 70-year rule (up from 50). No agreement has yet been signed between the Chapter and the institution, so I won't mention which institution; but we have in-principle agreement. As far as I can tell, this would be the first ever such collaboration. My understanding is, though, that the country of recording is irrelevant, since the students and engineers will sign away their performance rights to participate in the scheme [my later tweaks]. It's more to do with ownership of music scores. Ravel, I've been told, is copyrighted in France until 2016 ... so commons goes with the law in the country of origin, I presume. Tony1 (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As a formality, I need to stress that the prerogative to decide the nature of the scheme lies with the WM Chapter and the institution. I am merely a volunteer functionary, doing some of the groundwork for both institutions.

User:Graham87 informs me that the safe, simple date is 1924 for the first publication of the work (i.e., in the US, pre-1924 is public domain), with at least one conspicuous exception: Maurice Ravel, whose copyright expires in France in 2016. Luckily, most applications by students (via the institution) will be to record 18th- and 19th-century works, which I presume can be waved through; but there will be a persistent issue about 20th-century music.

Thanks for the advice about the contractual relationship between contemporary composers and their publishers. We don't want the hassle of approaching publishers, although I suppose a student could do so if they're really keen.

New recordings only, and with a slant towards "encyclopedic value", as yet not firmly defined.

Taking the audio-engineers out of the copyright equation is great, although the plan is to offer motivational rewards for their excellence as well as that of the performers. I think the students would like to be attributed (and the engineers should be mentioned on description pages always, when known, IMO). Beyond this, my personal preference is that the licence allow the re-use and remixing of the files completely freely. I must say my impression is that many Commons classical-music sound files suffer from suboptimal engineering. This scheme, in part, would aim to set new standards of engineering for the uploading of files of new performances to Commons, as well as promoting the idea of donating quality recordings of what is a huge classical music literature, much of it trodden over many times commercially, but almost untouched in terms of free recordings. In motivational terms, top-notch students and young professionals are the target of WM Australia's idea.

I hope we might be able to pass by an expert here the wording of a boilerplate email releasing performance rights. Tony1 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There's still a lot of differences between US law and Australian laws in the matters that concern us here. 1924 is not safe, in two ways; in the US, pre-1923 is public domain, not pre-1924; and there's a lot of stuff done by authors who lived past 1940 published before 1924. (I'm not a music expert, but when I went through a book of modern art, there was a lot of stuff done pre-1923 by authors who lived into the 1980s sometimes.) I'll post this now, and pick up on other things later.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, this can raise a number of tough questions, but hopefully there are ways of dealing with them. Commons, in general, requires works to be in the public domain in the country of origin (which is country of first publication usually), and also in the U.S. (since the Foundation is subject to U.S. law). As far as I can see, there are three major rights -- the copyright in the composition, the copyright in the sound recording, and performer's rights. Australia does have fair dealing, somewhat akin to the U.S. fair use, but Commons will not host any material which relies on those concepts -- copyrights must either be expired or freely licensed. Few of the contributors here are actual lawyers though (and I'm not one either), so keep that in mind with all replies here.

• The copyright of the composer is going to be quite varied, as they will come from different countries. The date of publication and the date of death of the composer can both matter. Most countries will use the date of death plus a fixed amount; for the U.S., the term is essentially based on the date of publication (not for works published since 1978, but those will be irrelevant here). However, for works of non-U.S. composers, most of those copyrights were restored, and those restorations are based on the laws of the country of origin of that composer. This can vary quite a bit, and the restorations are actually based on if the work was still copyrighted in those countries on the "URAA date" (January 1, 1996 for most countries), ignoring changes in copyright law since then. Commons will respect the current law in the country of origin as well. For example, for an Australian composer who died in 1940, the copyright would be OK for Commons, as the work would have expired in Australia on January 1, 1991, and was thus not restored in the U.S., nor was it restored by the extension of the Australian term to 70 years in 2005, I'm pretty sure. For the U.S. side, anything published before 1923 is OK, no matter when the composer died or where they were from. If published in 1923 or later, it very well may still be protected in the United States, and further research would have to be done. If it is a U.S. composer, then the restorations do not apply, but the old U.S. laws on copyright renewals still would, which requires further research. A lot of country-by-country details can be found at en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, although there are probably some omissions as to the status on the URAA date for some countries. This can all be complicated, but given the country of the composer, the date of their death, and the date of publication, it can all generally be worked out. This is the area folks here have the most experience with ;-) French composers have a twist (look at the page linked to above); Ravel's French copyright either expires in 2016 or may have expired already (based on how a court ruling is interpreted), however his U.S. status is clear -- for works published in 1922 or before, they are public domain now, and for works published in 1923 or later, they will remain copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years after publication (so 2019 is the earliest any of those will expire).
• The sound recording is going to be an Australian work, and will need to follow the laws there to determine copyright ownership. I think they allow works for hire, i.e. the copyright will be owned by the institution or person owning the recording equipment, unless some other arrangement is made by everyone involved. I see that Australian copyright law does allow a single agent to act as licensor for a group which owns the copyright, if that route is chosen (section 113A). It is probably best to consult your lawyers about who owns the copyright in the recording, and therefore who has authority to license it. I think section 97 is the relevant bit of Australian law. As mentioned by others, it is most preferable if the license could be one of the acceptable Creative Commons variants, but can be a custom license if it needs to be.
• Performer's rights is a separate question. It appears to be for Australian law, it includes "each person who contributed to the sounds of the performance". I don't know if that includes engineers or not. These rights are separate from the copyright in the recording, and actually are not directly enforceable in the U.S., as I don't think the U.S. has signed the Rome Convention. I believe U.S. performer's rights are limited only to the permission to record in the first place (and whatever contracts can be drawn by giving that permission). However, these rights would be enforceable in many other countries, and I think Wikimedia Commons would require those rights to be licensed too. I'm not sure Creative Commons licenses cover those, but they might. Again, best to have an Australian lawyer deal with that.
• Moral rights are a separate from the economic right, and usually cannot be transferred or waived. These do not explicitly exist in the U.S., but do in Australia, for both copyright owners and performers. That would include the right to be attributed, and also the right to not be attributed. So yes, we should name all the performers, unless they explicitly want to be left out, regardless of what license is chosen (even if "public domain"). As a technicality, a license such as CC-BY makes lack of attribution a full-blown copyright violation, as opposed to just a moral rights violation (which typically have lesser penalties), as well as specifying some aspects on how the attribution is done.

Hope this all helps; this sounds like a wonderful project, and would be great to have media like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Electromagnetic clutch

I don't know if this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_clutch) is in violation of copy-right or not. The fact is that the article reads like a text book and only sites 4 references (which only site for the "Construction" heading.). There are lots of problems, though, with this article. It is filled with a lot of jargon that someone (like me) who is unfamiliar with the topic can't understand. It also features poor formating in mathematical formula.

Based on the rules of plagiarism and proper citation that I learned through out my education, I would say this article at least needs more references. But my gut instinct tells me that someone just copied this out of their text book and there are too many people listed on the history of the article to figure out who contributed the majority of the text. It seems that one of the images in the article was deleted at some point, but I'm not very wiki-savvy, so I don't know if that's what it was or not.

I hope someone can clear this up or at least put this article in the category of needing citations and formatting.--Animemonster (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You have accidentally posted this message at the Wikimedia Commons and not the English Wikipedia. You should repost the message at the "Wikipedia:Village pump". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)