Commons talk:Licensing

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcuts
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to an archive (Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 24 in January 2010). Sections without timestamps are not archived.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Archived discussions

By date

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)

  • ...
  • 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 If you wish to dispute an archived page, you should begin a new discussion on this page and provide a link to the archive in question.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
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)

Kim Novak-Pal Joey2.JPG

Could someone take a look at the licensing of File:Kim Novak-Pal Joey2.JPG? I notice it was also uploaded by a banned user. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the uploader is irrelevant, provided the licensing checks out, which it seems to. I do not see any copyright notice in the source trailer, just as claimed. What do you think the problem is? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Status of the uploader is relevant if the uploader has a history of uploading problematic files and this happens to be one of them. The image is a screenshot of a famous scene from the 1957 film, taken from the trailer. How in the world could this possibly be a free file? Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with claims as ...is relevant if the uploader has a history of uploading problematic files.... Name 1,2,3 examples of problematic files. And why do you have changed the real source? 78.50.132.225 13:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not a real source for anything, and the trailer appears in full without the added paid advertisements at Internet Archive, and I've replaced the commercial link with the free one. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}. The US was a very different place in 1957, when it came to copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question. Are you saying all U.S. film trailers from 1957 lack copyright? The original linked this site, which doesn't say anything. However I just found this. I'm going to go ahead and replace the old link with the link to the Internet Archive, but I would still like to know how this film trailer came to be placed in the public domain. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any work which did not bear an explicit copyright notice in 1957 was public domain in the United States. There are various small exceptions to this, but this isn't one. See [1] for all the messy details. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that simple. Parts of the trailer do not appear in the film. However, the screenshot that is being used is from a famous scene in the film that is protected by copyright. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the trailer was published first. The fate of anything first published with that trailer rises and falls with that trailer, no matter what is true about materials that were published later, like the film.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't matter even if the trailer came second :-) All copies had to have a copyright notice; if there was none, even if earlier versions of the full film had one, then the portions in the trailer still became public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the film trailer lacked a copyright notice, then yes it became public domain immediately upon publication. Those were the U.S. copyright rules at the time. The source has the full trailer, and it is easy to see if there was a copyright notice or not, and I didn't see one. (So, do not change the source in the image description; it is rather important to keep that.) Ironically, it may be a bad idea to upload the trailer itself, as contained dialog may be a derivative work of a still-copyrighted screenplay or source novel, and contained music may still be copyrighted, but those don't apply to stills -- the visual part of the trailer became PD. For a 1957 trailer, even if there was a copyright notice, then the copyright to the trailer (a separate work from the film, as it was released and distributed separately) needed to be renewed, and many movie studios forgot to do that. Since the renewal would have had to be in 1984 or 1985, you can search for the record on www.copyright.gov, and if you can't find it, then it is like PD by that route anyways (but PD-US_no_notice happened first by the looks of it). The uploader has made arguments on the edge of copyright law, and a number were deleted after discussion, but at least they were arguable -- I don't recall any which were blatant copyright violations. The reasons for banning had nothing to do with uploaded content, so there is no presumption of bad faith. And even then, it is still irrelevant, since the copyright status can be independently verified without relying on the uploader's judgement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the link to the trailer at the Internet Archive, as the IMDb link contains more than just the trailer, including paid advertisements added to the trailer and the website link itself. It is not important to keep a link to IMDb and their paid advertisements, so I'm not following your argument. The Internet Archive link hosts the actual, unmodified trailer unlike the IMDb site which has added commercial advertisements. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I have changed it again to the original source. Btw: Even the webarchive is referring to IMDb.
Unless you give some sources for your crude claims as above, I also will give a note to the admin's board because of your trollism and vandalism, including libelling. It might help you, that you are not the only one. 78.55.122.222 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are mistaken. The Internet Archive site refers to a plot description from the IMDb, not the file, and it allows users to download the trailer in various formats without advertisements. The IMDb site is a commercial site that forces the user to watch advertisements and does not allow any downloads of the trailer. It even says "video begins after advertisement" at the top of the video screen before the commercials start. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your comments so I will ignore them, but I will restore the link to the Internet Archive downloads as they are commercial free. Unless you can give a valid reason as to why you are restoring links to commercial advertisements on Commons, I will assume that you don't have one. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mess with source statements -- it's possible the archive.org version is a lossy re-encoding, and slightly different (I have no idea). We are documenting the exact source the image was taken from, not following external link policies. The source field is now stating a falsehood. It is a good idea to point out the other one, so I had added it as an "other version", but you reverted that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same trailer, and the Internet Archive files (MPEG4, Ogg Video, 512Kb MPEG4) offer superior versions and multiple downloads. IMDb offers nothing but commercial advertisements; You can't even download the trailer. Why are we linking to commercial advertisements? Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is the source of the image, regardless of advertisements and if it's of lesser quality, as I think it is important to document the actual source of the still. That is what the "Source" field is for. Is the Internet Archive version the same exact encoding? If the archive.org version is better quality video, by all means make another still and upload it. The archive.org version was not added there until November 2009, a full year after the still was uploaded here, so it obviously wasn't the source (and the IMDB original may have slightly better image quality). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upload in progress... Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The MPEG4 hosted by Internet Archive is so superior in quality to the IMDb version that comparing them would be a waste of time. However, it should be noted that the version User:Mutter Erde uploaded appears to have been manipulated; Not in a bad way, but in order to best present the person in the frame. In other words, the file currently in place does not represent the source. It's not only cropped, but certain details have been removed. I'm sure this is acceptable, but it is hardly representative of the original source. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is still the source :-) Obviously improving the image for use here is good, but that doesn't change the source. If the still seems substantially inferior to the (changed) source, people may wonder why -- and people may jump to conclusions about the named uploader (or wonder what the actual source really was), which are further reasons the source should be left. Uploading a separate, better image from the newer source is better for all involved... ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congrats, you have good buddies [2], although everybody can see now in the history, that these screenshots are totally different - from one source, according to your claims. Furthermore I have asked at the Administrator's noticeboard, whether your own uploads have also real sources. But that's not so simple to prove as here. 78.55.24.136 22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I still have no idea what you are trying to say, but I'll try and steer my answer back on topic. The only thing different about the screenshot, is that I cloned out the rope like the previous uploader (you?). If there is consensus to upload the entire frame as it it appears, unchanged, I would be happy to do so. Otherwise, I was just following the precedent set before me which was to remove the rope from the frame as it was distracting the viewer from Novak's face. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody took a photo for me and I paid for it. What about license?

Via an organization somebody took a photo on my request at a place in a country where I could not go to. I paid for it and have received the electronic version of the photo. How about the license? What should I mention? Thanks, Wouter (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the law of the country in which the photograph was taken, and whether you agreed with the photographer that the copyright in the photograph would be owned by you. I suggest you contact the photographer by e-mail, get him or her to confirm that you hold the copyright to the photograph (or that he or she agrees to transfer the copyright in the photograph to you since you have paid for the photograph), and forward the e-mail conversation to the OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This person appears to be in the Netherlands. I don't know whether they have work-for-hire laws, but they don't have inalienable copyright like Germany; and they do have neighboring rights (naburige rechten) entitling them to a royalty for exhibition of the work. Most likely, a release statement will have to be obtained from both the copyright holder and the photographer. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be more exact: the organisation is Sendamessage. Palestinians write a message you ask them on the wall in Israel. You receive 3 photos in electronic form. Wouter (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is one cool idea. But a headache for the Commons, because what is the relevant copyright law, if any, in the Palestinian territories? It appears that the Palestinians are spray-painting the messages on the West Bank side of the Israeli West Bank barrier. Does Israeli law apply since the West Bank is under effective Israeli military occupation? The organization's website says: "You'll find names and bio's of our Palestinian partners at the 'Projects in Palestine' page. If they are open for e-mail exchange, or have a website you can visit, you'll find it here. Feel free to have your say, or ask a question." I suggest you try contacting them to get an e-mail confirmation that they are agreeable to transferring all copyright in the photographs to you since you have already paid for the photographs. Forward that conversation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. You can then license the photographs to the Commons under a free licence of your choice. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic image of 19th-century fresco

I would like to upload this image if it is permissible to do so. The image is an electronic copy of a fresco, Galileo Galilei che mostra l'utilizzo del cannocchiale al Doge di Venezia, in the Villa Andrea, Varese, Italy, painted by Giuseppe Bertini, who died in 1898. It seems probable to me that the image falls into the category of a scan of a photograph of a public domain two-dimensional work of art, and should therefore be uploadable under the {{PD-Art}} tag.

The one possible fly in the ointment is that none of the four websites where I have found copies of the image ([3], [4], [5], [6]) give any details of where they got their copies of it from. It is therefore at least possible that the reproduction from which any of these images was made might not be a photograph of the original, but a photograph or scan of a manually painted reproduction which might still be in copyright. Is this a problem?
David J Wilson (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you're thinking about these cases - realistically we can't hope to distinguish good painted reproductions from the original without forensic analysis. I'd like to think that such a reproduction, despite the fact that it was produced with a brush and not a camera, should fall under PD-Art anyway because it was intended to be a slavish copy with no original contribution. I also think it would be pretty unusual to find images of a copy in wide distribution, but not the original, although it could happen. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. My understanding of the PD-Art guidelines is that the tag can only be applied to mechanically reproduced (i.e. photographs , photocopies etc., or scans or photocopies etc. of such photographs) faithful copies of out-of-copyright two-dimensional works of art. At any rate, if I had any evidence that the image I wish to upload was not such a mechanically reproduced copy I wouldn't even consider trying to upload it, and wouldn't be seeking the advice of this forum.
Unfortunately, the only image I have seen which I know to be a mechanically reproduced copy of the original is a screenshot of an oblique view of it, partially obscured by a chandelier, which appears in the flash video at the Ville Ponti website. The only differences I can detect between the image in this screenshot and the image I wish to upload would appear to be due to the obliqueness of the angle of at which the former was taken, possibly automatic digital enhancement of the latter, and differences in the ambient lighting used when the images were made. But obviously there's no way I can be certain of this.
David J Wilson (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, practical issues make it impossible for us to tell when we are dealing with a hand-painted copy rather than the original. Generally we assume that paintings are what the uploader says they are, unless evidence to the contrary arises, since otherwise we wouldn't be able to upload any paintings at all. One can seriously raise the legal question of whether a hand painted copy is a mere copy or an original work, but that's a debate that hasn't arisen yet on Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing PD-Art with PS-Scan. PD-Art refers specifically to photographs of any two-dimensional work of art. So it is perfectly OK to lift any of those images and upload them here. If you don't want to expose yourself and/or your account to any hassle, create a new account that can't be connected with your person and upload them under this account. --h-stt !? 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I had presumed PD-Art would have to be the appropriate tag to apply here because the original work is a fresco. My understanding is that PD-scan only applies when a photocopy or scan is made directly from the original, and this would be effectively impossible for a fresco. By whatever process the electronic images were created, the first step would have to have been a photograph (or possibly a manually drawn or painted reproduction) "taken from a distance", as the When to use the PD-Art tag article puts it. Of course, the electronic images available on the web might have been derived from scans of such photographs, but they might also have been derived from directly downloaded digital photographs. On my reading of the When to use the PD-Art tag and When to use the PD-scan tag articles the PD-Art tag would still be the appropriate tag to use here even if the images were made by scanning a photograph of the original, but if I am wrong about this I should appreciate being disabused of my error.
David J Wilson (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PD-Art is the appropriate tag here - I think h-stt is confused. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to h-stt, my sloppily worded parenthetical list of examples—before I refactored it—did inappropriately lump together photocopies of original works, for which PD-scan would be the appropriate tag, with photographs and scans of photographs for which (as I understand it) they wouldn't. That may have been all he was referring to.
David J Wilson (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I finally stumbled across a site which has an image specifically identified as being of the fresco itself, and I have now uploaded it.
David J Wilson (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice image :-) Let us know if you have any other questions. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20minutos.es

Is there anyone who can confirm that I have licensed this image correctly? The source is in Spanish, and as far as I understand (using a translator), everything but content by other agencies is free to use. "Archivo" is "Archive", which would mean that it's by "20minutos.es". Thanks. Nymf (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being in their archives doesn't necessarily mean they created it themselves. El Mundo and Xinhuanet both say it's a Reuters photo. --dave pape (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It should probably be attributed as "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES" for it to be valid then, like with File:Christina_Ricci.jpg. Any chance you can delete my upload? Nymf (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --dave pape (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the source site uses "Archivo" whenever they use an image that is already under copyright. Tabercil (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1945 UK photographs

Hey all.

I thought I had a good grasp of UK copyright. However, today, I read (on some obscure website or other) that any photograph shot on or before 31 December 1944 was already out of copyright by the 1996 EU harmonisation, and would therefore now be public domain.

Is this based in fact? I don't think it's mentioned anywhere here on Commons and it sure would be useful, but neither I have I seen it referenced on any major (reliable) website. THe only supporting evidence for this view isthe following:

“

(1) Copyright subsists in an existing work after commencement only if copyright subsisted in it immediately before commencement. (2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not prevent an existing work qualifying for copyright protection after commencement - (a) under section 155 (qualification by virtue of first publication)...

”

But the 1956 Act would still need to be considered. Thanks, Jarry1250 (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true only for UK photos that were not copyrighted in another EEA country on July 1, 1995. Photos that were copyrighted in even just a single other EEA country on that date are copyrighted even in the UK, even if taken before 1945. See Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 3297, part III: Savings and transitional provisions, article 16(d); the whole part III makes it very clear that the implementation of EU Directive 93/98/EEC did revive already expired copyrights.
Both the UK and Spain were members of the Berne Convention long before, Spain has an effective copyright term of 80 years for works from that period, and Spain has a low threshold of originality. Therefore, my conclusion is that such photos were copyrighted in Spain, and thus are copyrighted (with a 70-year term, beginning at the author's death) in the UK, too.
AFAIK there are no court cases in the UK about this precise issue, possibly because the matter was settled before it ever arose in the UK by the European Court of Justice in response to similar cases from Germany.
Lupo 13:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the copyright situation regarding prints by the painter Turner? I want to upload a file from Turner's Liber Studiorum for the Unknown Sailor page. He died in 1851 - does this mean that these prints are in the public domain or is copyright owned by art galleries that contain his work?

BTP51 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the published work is in the PD by now. In the US, it predates 1923, so it is a go, and in jurisdictions where life of artist plus 100 years. -Andrew c (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License question

Hiya... thought I'd bounce this off the folks here before I start uploading. I had emailed the PR person for Hockey Canada looking for some pictures of the Canadian Olympic women's hockey team:

Hi, I am one of thousands of volunteer writers for the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. I am presently working on improving an article related to the Canadian Women's hockey team at the Olympics and the various players that are on it. Unfortunately, many of them currently contains no freely-licensed photos. I was wondering if Hockey Canada might be willing to provide a few images to be used to illustrate these articles.

His reply (in full, emphasis mine):

Hey there,
I've sent a zip file with the head shots for the woman's team. Pleas note that the link will expire in two days so please download when you get a chance.
These are the only shots we're able to supply liscense free.
Thanks
Jeff

Now - is his statement of it being "license free" sufficient for Commons? On the face it seems to be, but I just want to get all the excitement over license issues out of the way first. Tabercil (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we need a more specific statement, that mentions a license by name (or states "Public Domain"), and acknowledges possible re-use, modification, and commercial use. I know it may be a bit inconvenient, but perhaps you should send them our disclaimer template and ask them to fill it out . (COM:EMAIL), -Andrew c (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I find most people who are releasing files will be happy to fill out the formal license form if you fill it in with the right information for them. Just pick a license like CC-BY. The "license free" statement shows intention but is not really enough. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I half-suspected would be the answer... so off I go to see what I can get. <G> Tabercil (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en.wiki template screenshot

I want to upload this modified template as an image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Actinidesvsfissionproducts (the one less compact)

Which licence is it and what do I have do to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothestone (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template is Wikipedia content and all Wikipedia content is "available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License", as the statement at the bottom of each page states. I'd say license it under CC-BY-SA-3.0. You mentioned that you wanted to create a screenshot of the template. Since it consists entirely of text, it may be better if you create an SVG file (though I have no idea how to do so – see "Commons:SVG" for information and leave a message at "Commons:Graphic Lab" for help from other editors). Finally, do remember to sign and date your posts by adding four tildes at the end ("~~~~"). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think image will be enough. Sorry about the forgotten sign. --Toothestone (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old statue?

If something's over 100 years old, is a picture of it allowed here? I'm wanting to make sure, you see. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on several things:
  • Where exactly is the statue located? Which country is it in? Is it on permanent or temporary display? In some (but not all) countries there is a concept called "freedom of panorama", which allows people to freely take photographs of artworks such as statues if they are permanently installed in a location where the public has access. However, if the statue is definitely over 100 years old (what evidence do you have of this?), it is likely that the creator of the statue no longer has copyright in it, so this may not be too much of a problem.
  • Are you taking the photograph yourself? If the creator of the statue no longer has copyright in it because it is very old, there is usually no problem if you personally take a photograph of it and license that photograph to the Commons. However, if you have found a photograph that somebody else has taken of the statue and want to upload that, that is not allowed as the photographer has copyright in the photograph (even if the artist no longer has copyright in the statue itself).
Hope that is helpful. See "Commons:Image casebook#3D art (sculptures etc.)" for more information. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes. Is it then required that I put information with the photo I took stating how it qualifies under the freedom of panorama? --Neptunerover (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FOP is only an issue if the statue is still under copyright. If so, state where it is located, and check the list at COM:FOP to see whether FOP is applicable. If you could also state who the sculptor was and when he lived, that'd be great. To provide evidence for a PD-claim on the statue you'd need to give location, sculptor and his life dates, and the date the statue was made/unveiled. BTW, could you please provide a geolocation for File:HorsePost.jpg? Lupo 07:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear enough about this. If the statue itself is already out of copyright because it is very old, then freedom of panorama is not an issue. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that for me. Geolocation? Not on the Internet. I can imagine somebody seeing it and wanting to steal it or something. Who knows? It's not mine, so I wouldn't feel right divulging its location. It's meant just as a photograph of a subject at a non-specific location, which is one of its elements. I like the vagueness of 'Planet Earth' as a location, though I'm sure some people would view that as a smarty-pants statement, so I refrain from claiming that on the photo information. --Neptunerover (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which country is it in, at least? Don't need geolocation, but the country is important, otherwise we wouldn't know which laws to apply. That may be enough. If it's a mass-produced type of statue, it may also be OK given the age. If not... the artist really should be named, if it is at all possible to determine. If it is more like 120-150 years old, instead of 100, that may be enough too. If the statue is not the focus of the photo, it may be OK as well (hard to say without seeing the photo). But, not providing any information at all won't get you many good answers :-) The country is a first step, as that would at least give is an idea of which further information would be required. At this point... maybe it's OK, maybe it isn't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are about education we need as much information on our images as possible. In case of a statue, we need the artist, the time of creation, the title, information on the style, location and ownership. If some of that is missing, we can live with it, but images where you deliberately withhold standard information, are not really useful and therefore not welcome here. So either you offer an appropriate set of information or please don't upload the images. --h-stt !? 15:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionnaire touareg – français

I would like to upload a scan of Charles de Foucauld’s Dictionnaire touareg – français. Since I’m new to Commons, and would like to avoid uploading 2000 files just to find that I misunderstood some copyright issue, I would just like to make sure there are no problems.

Foucauld has been dead for more than 70 years; and there have been no complaints about this page from the Dictionnaire. I have not scanned the original manuscript, though, but the facsimile edition published by the Imprimerie Nationale de France in 1951/52. Does this have any impact on the copyright? There are some photos as frontispieces in this facsimile edition, and a foreword which was not written by Foucauld; I am not going to upload these.

I hope this is the right place to ask … thanks in advance for your help! — Linus (disk) 21:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend uploading this in .djvu format, rather than as individual files. See Help:Creating a DjVu file. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the DjVU file has 175 MB, even at 300 dpi resolution. If I split the file, the page numbering won’t be correct anymore. Any advice? — Linus (disk) 14:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since there seem to be no objections, I have uploaded the scan: Category:Dictionnaire touareg – français. — Linus (disk) 16:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Lady ghost photo

I'd like to upload the Brown Lady ghost photo for use on the wikipedia 'ghost' article, but I can't figure out what the licensing on it is. it was taken and published in the British magazine 'Countrylife' back in 1936, and has been broadly reproduced in multiple forms of media - can this be considered public domain? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Country Life indicate the source or copyright status of the image? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was apparently made by a separate photography company -- Indre Shire Inc. -- and the photographer was Captain Hubert C. Provand. According to the reports I could find on the web anyways. You'd have to find out when Provand died (I couldn't), and UK copyright would expire 70 years later. Most likely still under copyright. And the U.S. copyright would definitely still be valid, and would last until Jan 1, 2032. There may well no longer be a legitimate copyright owner to actually bring lawsuits, but Commons doesn't use any reasoning like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: the image had once existed as en:File:Brownlady.jpg, but was deleted in 2008 as a "possibly unfree image", since apparently nobody could figure out the life dates of this Captain Provand. Lupo 13:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, since the image is such a famous one, I may try uploading it to wikipedia directly under fair use. I'll check out the details of the policy there. thanks for the info.  :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opus3Artists license

Hello, as you can see http://www.opus3artists.com/artists/matthias-pintscher the website of this booking agency has downloadable images of the their artists, there are links to download images in tiff format freely, is it necessary to contact them and asking of a license? Free download doesn't imply free use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letame (talk • contribs) 05:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, free download does not imply free use for all purposes. It is not clear enough whether the copyright owner intends only personal use, or use for all purposes. I note that at the bottom of the web page the line "© 2010 Opus 3 Artists. All Rights Reserved." appears. The Commons can only host content that users can download and freely use, including modifying the images and using them for commercial purposes. Try contacting the website owner to see if it is willing to license the images under a free licence: see "Commons:Email templates" for more information. Oh, and don't forget to sign and date your messages by adding four tildes ("~~~~") after them. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No rights reserved

What's the best template to use when the copyright holder says "No rights reserved". I'm thinking {{Copyrighted free use}}, since I feel that in order for something to really be "public domain" the copyright holder must explicitly say it is, but "no rights" essentially means "no copyright", which is the definition of PD (at least in the US). Rocket000 (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter too much. In fact, in the United States and other countries where individuals cannot place works into the public domain, the distinction is irrelevant. This is why the tag {{PD-author}} contains the text: "In case this is not legally possible: {{{1}}} grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." I would use either {{PD-author}} or {{Copyrighted free use}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the author can be contacted to make {{CC0}} explicit (about page), that may be work too. But assuming that license would probably not be a good idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In this particular case I had, it actually had a © by their name, e.g. "© Rocket000. No rights reserved." So I went with {{Copyrighted free use}}. :) Rocket000 (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ougree 16.jpg

This photo is taken from this site, but on the site's licensing page, it states the license as CC-NC. It doesn't look like the uploader is the photographer.--Farrokh Bulsara (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark it as a {{Copyvio}}, or nominate it for deletion, as you prefer. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That person's site used to be licensed under the GPL, at least until late 2004. It looks like the site got hacked, and content was only gradually replaced. This photo was put online in 2005, and uploaded to en-wiki not long after. I can't find any license statements on the archived versions of his site from that era, although the linked blog (on a different site) was CC-BY-NC-ND. The explicit CC-BY-NC license for the photos was not put up until 2007. It's possible there is a version of the page which does have the license, which the wayback machine doesn't have, or maybe it was emailed permission (the rules were different in 2005). The original uploader was en:User:Vb; perhaps that person can be asked. The author does appear to be quite aware of free licenses and the variations; seems like there is a reasonable chance the license was OK, but there is no evidence of that right now. It would be good if someone could look at the original en-wiki page to see if there is any better evidence there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original enwiki content was "François Schreuer available from [7] within the creative commons [8]". Does that help? Jarry1250 (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CC-BY-NC for photos appeared as early as June 21, 2006, see [9]. Unfortunately there appears to be a gap in 2005 in archive coverage, annoyingly enough. If you look at his page on August 31, 2005[10] (just a few days after the images were uploaded to en.wiki) You'll see this photo page linked, but unfortunately it loads a copy cached in 2006. A few of the other links do load copies cached in 2005, however[11] and the cc-by does appear on them. -Nard the Bard 21:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could someone with more licensing knowledge verify this comment. I'm not sure this is correct, so help would be appreciated. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Science Foundation grants

Hey all. I'm sure I've seen this discussed recently, but this is a big case so bringing it back up. While reviewing Picasa images I came across this category containing 169 files from a Picasa set. They're marked "all rights reserved" on Picasa but the album is described as follows:

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0542238. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

The uploader appears to have concluded that this makes them eligible for {{PD-USGov-NSF}}. I'm skeptical. Thoughts? Dcoetzee (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where right now, but I know I've had this discussion either here or on Wikisource. If you go back to the published Senate commentary on the passing of the 1978 law, they were pretty clear that federal grants by default do not make the works public domain and that the license on the results could be set by the government as part of the grant contract if necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. I'll nom the set for deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Product of the UN?

Do I remember rightly that works of the United Nations are PD? A file is currently at Deletion Requests with the rationale that UN images aren't free. Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, generally they're not. U.S. copyright law, for instance, explicitly also covers works published by the UN or its suborganization, or by the OAS. See 17 USC 104(b)(5). The UK treats works by UN employees just like any other works, and even in the rare cases where such works would not otherwise be copyrighted (for instance, first publication in Afghanistan), they still may be copyright through section 168 of the Copyright and Patents Act.
That said, the UN does place some of their works in the public domain; see {{PD-UN}}.
In case you're talking about File:Credentialspic.jpg, it's even unclear to me whether that is a UN photo. On first glance, it doesn't seem to be covered by {{PD-UN}}. Isn't the official mission of Palau to the UN an entity of Palau, not of the UN? Lupo 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CC attribution

What does the CC attribution requirement mean in practice? Typically, when someone uses a CC image from Commons, there is a link back to the description page, but no actual attribution. (An example I just stumbled into: File:Thomas Bresson - Fort de Roppe (abri-caverne) (by).jpg which explicitle requests crediting by name, but the photographer's name does not appear in the POTD subtitles or the images subtitles on the wikis where the image is used. Is that legal or not? --Tgr (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Licensing&oldid=35964919"