Commons talk:Licensing

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to an archive (Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 34 in May 2011). 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 If you wish to dispute an archived page, you should begin a new discussion on this page and provide a link to the archive in question.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)

"No Known Restrictions" Question

Merged to Commons:Help_desk#License_Question, now archived here

Question

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Question, now archived here

Folklore art does not have copyright?

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Folklore art does not have copyright? now archived here

German PD help

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#German PD help

Hello! I would like to know the true copyright status of Terbelliou.jpg and its derivatives. It is a photo of an early 8th-century seal, probably scanned from a book like this. When reproduced here, for instance, it says "Photo: Dumbarton Oaks, Copyright 1996". Does copyright really apply to this picture, which is after all a mere black-and-white image of a 1300-year old object? Constantine ✍ 11:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the seal itself is surely old enough to be out of copyright. Under certain circumstances, photographs of old pieces of art are not copyrightable (see COM:ART). However, this is not a flat painting but a 3D object, so the photograph of it is probably in fact copyrighted – see COM:ART#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art and COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. A deletion request might be appropriate here. Greetigs, --El Grafo (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I was expecting that, but the problem is the wording "When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on)". I know I may be splitting hairs, but this photo is really a "photocopy" of the seal, if there's any artistic input here, then I'm blind. In other words, the seal is essentially reproduced as if it where a 2D object. If the board's opinion remains that it should be deleted, however, I'll go ahead with a deletion request. Constantine ✍ 14:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I just now noticed that a decision here affects quite a lot of files (cf. Seals of Bulgaria). Oh dear... Constantine ✍ 14:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova

where is Moldova? I didn't found it this list. Add an article and for this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani XXN (talk • contribs) 2012-08-14T16:33:53 (UTC)

Here is the WIPO Lex entry. The law is only available in Moldovan and Russian. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copying formerly non-free media from local wikis: is permission from the original uploader required?

Suppose Alice uploads a screenshot (let's call it X.png) of a non-free software application to the English Wikipedia, which allows fair use files. Bob wants to upload X.png on Wikimedia Commons and manages to obtain permission from the author of the application. Does he need to obtain permission from Alice as well, or can he upload it directly (because Alice isn't really the "author" of the screenshot)?

Thanks in advance. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Was there any creativity involved when Alice created the screenshot? If so, she also has a copyright on the image and Bob needs to obtain her permission. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely -- somebody does not gain rights over an image simply by uploading it. In the case of screenshots though, if there are a number of elements arranged, there is a slight possibility of a copyright on the specific arrangement. But one would hope that that aspect would have been considered freely licensed already; en-wiki would allow non-free use of the application itself, but I can't imagine they would allow a screenshot covered by a selection and arrangement copyright as well when it would be very easy to create one without such encumbrance. It would take a certain amount of arrangement to get such a copyright I think -- if there are only 2-3 elements, I don't think that would qualify anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. In the case of generic screenshots, I'm guessing Bob can go ahead and re-upload the image to Commons as long as he has permission from the program's author? --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X rays

What is the communities opinion on the comments here [1] that X-rays are not copyrightable? Does this mean that I can use any X rays I find online?James Heilman, MD (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That page only seems to explain the copyright status in the United States. In some countries, such as the Nordic countries, all photos are copyrightable simply because they are photos. In Switzerland, I suppose that most X-ray photos aren't copyrighted, given COM:TOO#Switzerland. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion on Commons:Patient images; it's a hard question. It sounds like Germany may protect them with their lower-term simple photo copyright, which indicates they are below the threshold of the EU copyright directives, but they still may be protected. No idea on the U.S.; I could see arguments both ways. There are of course significant medical records laws and privacy issues surrounding such images as well. The court decision linked at your site is interesting, but it involves digital 3D models made of cars which were in turn made from precise computerized measurements of the physical cars themselves, with further hand massaging for elements they could not measure well. The company claimed copyright on that hand massaging and was denied. They actually had obtained a copyright registration, but the court decided the particular process used to create the model did not involve enough creativity. The copyright on photographs are on things like the lighting, angle chosen, arranging the subject to get a desired effect, and that sort of thing. Another case described it as elements of originality in a photograph may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved. Most of those would not exist in an x-ray setting, and perhaps none, though one might make an argument for arrangement of the subject to get the desired result. There was the Bridgman decision where the photograph was essentially a copy of a 2-D original painting, and that was not copyrightable, but this is a little different. Most photographs are protected, and photographing 3D objects usually involves a little bit of creativity, so we usually assume those are copyrightable in the absence of a ruling to the contrary. These aren't normal photographs though. I guess that it's very possible they are not protectable by copyright, but we may prefer a more solid court precedent or copyright office ruling before assuming they are OK to upload (and I would not upload them from countries which appear to protect them under simple-photo copyrights unless those terms have expired). For the US, it may be possible to find x-rays created by the federal government (such as the NIH) and use those, to avoid the question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes so the question is could one take an xray from a textbook published in the USA and add it to Wikipedia because they are not copyrightable in that jurisdiction?James Heilman, MD (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess the short answer is, we may be hesitant to do that absent a more specific ruling on the subject, or some other legal commentary which shows there is some consensus on the matter. It could even be the situation that normal patient X-rays are not copyrightable, but certain X-rays made specifically for a book or other publication (i.e. there was a targeted aspect they were trying to illustrate) could be copyrightable. That's kind of the problem; without a ruling, we don't know what the legal boundaries are, and we tend to be conservative. Do most doctors consider them uncopyrightable or does the subject really never come up? I can't find any commentary at all on copyright.gov really. If you know of any other court cases or other literature which could give some clarity, that would help. I can't say for sure they would be deleted if uploaded, but they might be. X-rays made by the U.S. federal government would be fine though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one US court case on the topic [2]
There are a number of options regarding who owns the copyright if anyone. They include:
  1. The person who takes the image (X ray tech)
  2. The doctor who ordered the image
  3. The doctor who reads the image (radiologist)
  4. The hospital who owns the equipment / employees the X ray tech
  5. The person/institution who paid to have the image taken
  6. The government /shareholders who owns the hospital
I have uploaded a number of X rays to Wikimedia Commons. The question is am I as the ordering physician able to release them under a CC BY SA license? The images have patient identifiers removed and thus concerns of patient confidentiality do not apply (already had this discussion with legal here in Canada and they are happy). With respect to copyright this never comes up. We all simply use them for teaching and publication without any real though. James Heilman, MD (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/07#Strange clause?. It seems that the copyright holder to a Canadian photo might be the one who, at the point of photography, owned the equipment used for taking the photo, or perhaps the one who at that time owned the storage medium (negatives, memory cards etc.). Not sure if that helps you identifying the copyright holder. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
X rays are not photos as there is no creativity. They are taken based on specific procedures. More like a photocopy. James Heilman, MD (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would somewhat question that position, as by adjusting the voltage (in effect, the power) of the x-ray tube and by choosing an specific angle you do influence the resulting image. The fact that another person using the identical settings on the identical object/subject would result in an identical image is also true for classical photography, except for the influence of the available light. --Túrelio (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The powers and angles are specified and not up to the person using the machine. I guess the question is, is the WMF legal team interested in testing this. James Heilman, MD (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But specified by the radiologist. IMO you could compare that to the not-so-rare situation when person A asks person B to take a shot of him/her, after person A has made all the settings and choosen the position from wheree to take the photo, so that person B only presses the button. --Túrelio (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not specified by the radiologist but specified by the profession. Certain x rays are always taken in certain ways. By the way the legal case on this issue is here [3] James Heilman, MD (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we have had a number of these images deleted already [4] and [5] I have send a note to the WMF legal counsel to get his opinion on this. James Heilman, MD (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely some of such images were deleted, for example because they were taken in Germany, where they are legally protected for 50 years. --Túrelio (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These images where from radswiki. I know the person who runs the site (which he started while in Canada). He trained at my University and has released a number of the images under a CC BY SA license when asked. James Heilman, MD (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, the images I had in my head when answering, were uploaded by a Wikipedian from Germany whom I even know in RL and they had been made by his own doctors. --Túrelio (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The images I was referring to in the case was these [6]. James Heilman, MD (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question there was that if copyright had not actually been transferred to the owners of the site, then the site owner had no authority to release them under a CC-BY-SA license in the first place. Only the copyright owner can do that. Just like Wikimedia has no right to further license most of the works on Commons -- the copyright is still owned by the original copyright owners, and can only be used under the terms they allowed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That case does agree that slavish copying (particularly when automated) is not copyrightable, but it is not a case directly about X-rays. It's about a computer 3D-model made of an existing object (a car) using an automated process (i.e. little human authorship to begin with). The copyright owner of an X-ray would be whoever the employer of the technician is, unless there is a written agreement to the contrary (if the X-ray was taken before 1978, which is when a new copyright law went into place changing the rules on copyright transfer, the situation is not as clear, but it would be either the employer of the technician, or the person who paid for the X-ray, or perhaps the owner of the negative). It is of course very possible that X-rays are not copyrightable in the U.S., since at least most of the aspects associated with authorship of photographs are not present. Even the voltage and angle thing may not count, if they are standard industry practice. In his old copyright books (often cited by the courts), Nimmer mentioned two situations where a photograph would not be copyrightable. One is "slavish copying", e.g. photographing another photograph, making a print, the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. ruling (which cited Nimmer's book), or the case you just linked to. The second is where a photographer tries to re-create the elements of an existing photograph. X-rays don't clearly fall into either category, although as Nimmer was mainly using existing case law as a guide, it may just mean the X-ray situation has never been tested in court. Without such a ruling, we may be hesitant to keep them -- it's possible that they are below the threshold of originality, but it's also possible that there could be creativity involved in trying to highlight a particular area of the body with an X-ray. I think they are definitely below the usual European "creation of the mind" threshold, and thus not subject to 70pma over there, but they have been mentioned to be protected by the shorter German "simple photographs" term (50 years). Several European countries do have shorter terms for "simple" photographs like that, and some other European countries may not protect them at all. Those questions would come up if the X-rays are from those countries. The question for U.S. X-rays though is what the U.S. would do, and it would be nice to have a more on-topic case to have better certainty. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure however it would be very unfortunate to simply delete all X rays as we have no firm idea of whom owns the copyright. And if its is the employer the employer at what level? The radiologist, the hospital, the health region, the government, the shareholders? When textbooks / journal publish radiology images they attribute the physician. But this of course does not mean they are right. James Heilman, MD (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The company who pays the technician, by default (it's a work for hire), unless there are contracts in place which specify something different. Not knowing the copyright owner is not relevant to a PD-ineligible theory of keeping X-rays; they are either copyrightable or not, and if so, we would delete. It may be a question if someone does claim copyright ownership and licenses it; they would have to be the owner for the license to be valid, and that is a very different question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When Xray images are published in textbooks or journals they credit a doctor. This doctor is typically not the employer of the Xray tech. They however do not state that the doctor has copyright. And the journal / textbook does not request permission from anyone else (hospital or government).
I guess the big question is, if there is no legal precedent, do we just follow what is done in the rest of publishing (the images are provided courtesy of someone involved be it physician or patient) James Heilman, MD (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay found some sources. This textbook from 1997 states "ownership of medical images has been in dispute for as lon as X rays have existed: the patient who paid for the images, whose body parts are the subjects have insisted that they own their own images, and the medical world has insisted that they belong to the physician under whose care they were made"[7]

The next question of course is which physician? The images I have uploaded where patients under my care thus I should be good I hope. Should we go with both. :-) James Heilman, MD (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you quoted is about the ownership of the images. It may be related also to personality rights, like the right to the image of persons, etc. It is not about the ownership of the copyright on the images. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it might be helpful for Commons or the WMF to look at how online open-access journals like PLoS One [8] and BMJ Open [9] ([10]) operate. From a publishing perspective, it seems to me there are some useful analogies there with our own situation. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership of the physical X-rays is separate from ownership of the copyright (if it exists). Before 1978, some courts allowed an implied transfer in some situations, but not since then, where 17 USC 202 applies. On the other hand, if medical journals allow X-rays to be published with the sole authorization of the doctor, that may be something we could look to as a precedent (though they could always claim fair use if the copyright is contested, something which is harder for us). If you believe you are the copyright owner of the X-rays, then you should be able to license them. I'm just cautioning about taking any available X-ray off the internet under the theory it is not copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that any slight amount of creativity would be completely and inherently inappropriate for a medical xray or any other standard medical test.--Taylornate (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There would be expected medical uses for those, and for sure copyright would not intrude on any of those. When it comes to illustrations for medical articles though, that is a more typical copyright situation. It's entirely possible such things are below the threshold of originality, but it'd be far better to have a court ruling to back it up. For example, if someone is writing a medical article, and takes several X-rays to illustrate a particular aspect (i.e. not in the course of normal medical treatment), is that enough? How does that differ from a normal photograph? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent full article on the subject I've been able to find in a peer-review medical journal is Copyright law and academic radiology: rights of authors and copyright owners and reproduction of information. EJ Stern, L Westenberg - American Journal of Roentgenology, 1995. Since then, academic journals don't seem to have found it worth providing guidance beyond their own instructions to authors. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good overview of copyright law (terms were increased by 20 years since that was written, but the basics are all the same). But it does not raise the issue of whether X-rays are copyrightable at all; it mostly deals with situations where they assume works are copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the editor and chief of MedPix "However,for the purposes of publication, the permission or "copyright assignment" almost always comes from the authors of the article manuscript - who are usually not the referring physicians, and are often not even the Radiologist who made the initial or original interpretation "read" for the patients clinical record." It seems that the first one to send it for publication get copyright out in the real world. Strange yes.James Heilman, MD (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the real world of academic publishing, regular use of illustrations of original radiological images is essential for both research and educational purposes. Authors are expected to provide images of suitable quality that have been completely anonymized [11], and are free from potentially misleading artifacts and any inappropriate manipulation. These are real issues, as is signed patient consent to anonymous publication of the data. Copyright concerns that authors are expected to address are generally confined to reproduction of previously published material, rather than de novo publication of original images. Major journals clearly deal with such questions on a day-to-day basis. It seems to me that a practical way forward could be for WMF to contact an open-access online publisher such as PLoS to inquire about any cautionary steps (appropriate permissions etc) which need to be taken when publishing original radiographic and other clinical images on the internet for educational purposes with a Commons license. 2c, —MistyMorn (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For works such as films or whatnot, does the copyright exist in both the colonising country and the colony, or only one, for the purposes of establishing URAA extensions? For example, File:Lily van Java scene.jpg was released in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) in 1928. Indonesia became independent in 1945. In Indonesia, the film would have become public domain in 1978 and thus not been extended by the URAA; however, in the Netherlands the image only became public domain in 1998 and thus would have fallen afoul of the URAA. How did the US apply the URAA in such situations? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that the film entered the public domain in the Netherlands in 1998? The earliest possible date would be 70 years after creation, i.e. in 1999. However, en:Lily van Java lists a film director (who is, I believe, one of the people seen as co-authors according to EU rules), and I can't find any evidence that he died before 1942. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, forgot it was 70+1 (as an easy way to count, not in legalese). Nelson was inactive by 1934 although I have also been unable to find a reliable source to his year of death (there's generally a clause in the laws about that, right?).
Now, would it have been considered Indonesian or Dutch by the URAA? Even if this particular film weren't PD in the Netherlands, this and other old films would generally be free enough for Wikipedia (G. Kruger's Eulis Atjih comes to mind, which was definitely PD in the Netherlands by 2006 and PD in Indonesia before the URAA).Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Dutch East Indies was part of the Netherlands, but rather a colony. The Dutch copyright law was applied there, and such works would be protected today in the Netherlands (their law still says This Act shall remain in force in respect of all literary, scientific or artistic works published for the first time by or on behalf of the author prior to 27 December 1949 in the Dutch East Indies or prior to 1 October 1962 in Dutch New Guinea). But if the movie was truly released in the Dutch East Indies, and not the Netherlands proper, I think the URAA would use Indonesia's law (same if they are considered to be simultaneously published in the two countries). So I think it went out of copyright there at the latest in 1979 (films had a term of 50 years from publication). Interesting that Indonesia joined the WTO in 1995 but did not join Berne until 1997 (the URAA date is still January 1, 1996 because of the WTO). Per this book, it seems as though the UK at least treated the Dutch East Indies as a separate foreign country when it came to relations under the Berne Convention). Note that Curacao, treated the same way at the time, has a term of 50pma today despite being a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands -- the 70pma extension applies only for the EU portions of the Netherlands. I think the movie is fine here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if I've got your post right, so long as the film is not known to have been published in the Netherlands than Indonesian copyright probably applied in terms of the URAA
That would make many images free enough for the English Wikipedia, but wouldn't the Netherlands still have copyright on certain works (known author who died 1942 or later, unknown author published after 1942?).Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't published in the Netherlands, the Commons isn't really concerned about its copyright there. Just the US and the country of origin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madagsacar

If someone can read French fluently, I believe the copyright laws for Madagascar can be found through the two links on this page: UNESCO Collection of national copyright laws

Madagascar is currently not on the list. – Maky « talk » 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Licensing&oldid=76361879"