Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Community portal
introduction
Help desk
uploading
Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Shortcut: COM:VP/C · COM:VPC
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Commons discussion pages (index)


Please note
  1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
 

File:Bromley Manhattan Plate 001 publ. 1955–56.jpg[edit]

Have I used the correct license? Thanks. Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was not really renewed, then the tag is correct. Ruslik (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
That is one way to do it :-) As long as it's a U.S. work, we should trust their determinations of no copyright restrictions. Given that there is a copyright notice, and that I couldn't find a renewal notice on www.copyright.gov (which should be there for any work copyrighted 1951 or later), I added the {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag as well as that is the virtually-certain reason it's PD. It's good to keep the note that the NYPL also marked it copyright-free, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I was curious, so I double checked. It's in the catalog for 1956, shown as published 9 December 1955, as registration A218812. No renewal filed. Reventtalk 12:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
(we should have a template for giving this info, btw) Reventtalk 12:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Is this copyright information available online? Vzeebjtf (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vzeebjtf: Yes, but it can take some practice with knowing exactly where to look... the pre-1978 material is not in the form of a database. The page at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ is a good reference, but links to the scans at Google Books... I find the ones at the Internet Archive harder to 'browse', but easier to use once you have the right volume. Often, you'll need to check a window of a few years around when the paperwork 'should' have been filed (such as in this case, when the registration was in the volume for the next year). Also, it's important to note that the database at the USCO pads file numbers out to twelve characters, so for A218812 the search term was A00000218812. Reventtalk 14:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Thank you very much for this valuable information. I had no idea! And sorry for the delay in acknowledging; I was off line for a week. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi)[edit]

Moved from Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi). --Achim (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Are They really in public domain gita press started in 1923. No painter name no author life time no published date Baddu676 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Mahabharata appears to be an ancient text. Is that volume a translation, an adaptation, or just a printed edition of public domain text? If there was new authorship in that volume, but no author listed, then it is anonymous -- those types of works can have shorter terms. Which country is Gita Press from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir from India. The world largest publisher of Hinduism Books with very low cost --Baddu676 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, India has a term of 60 years from publication for anonymous works, which if there is no author named, means this one is. The linked work has a library stamp date of 1955, which means that volume was published before that (and possibly well before that). So, the work is virtually certain to be PD in India even if there was new copyrightable content in this edition. The US situation would be a bit fuzzier, and would depend on the exact publication date (before 1941 would mean it's OK), and if there was any new copyrightable content in this edition (if not then there was nothing copyrightable to begin with). If this is a translation rather than the original text, then there would be new content. If it is the age-old text, then there is nothing new, unless there was a foreword or annotations or other added text. So, is this a translation, or is there any added text? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read this book page about gita press.Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India --Baddu676 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Google Books is blocking some of the linked pages for me... can't quite tell what helpful information would be there for the questions I had above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This book says that these are published in 1955s by gita press--Baddu676 (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Dia03.PNG (and its other version, File:Fegyverbe!.jpg)[edit]

What is the proper licence tag for this poster? Is {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1953}} OK? Next, is it a work of art, i.e. {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1953}} should be used? --jdx Re: 14:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: Unfortunately, the correct tag for those images is a DR template, with Category:Undelete in 2024. Hungary's copyright term is 70 years after the date of death for published works with known creators, and the chance that this poster (that was created for the 1919 revolution) was ever published outside of Hungary is very minimal.
However, to directly answer your question, I think the 'best' tagging here would be {{PD-Art-two|PD-old-auto|PD-1923|deathyear=1953}}, and would suggest adding that to both before taking the work to DR. You might want to read COM:When to use the PD-Art tag, but TLDR, PD-Art should be used when the depicted work is in the public domain, but we do not have a license from the actual photographer (because the uploader obtained the image from an outside source). Reventtalk 10:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: OK, however there seems to be a problem with {{PD-Art-two}} – see User:Jdx/licence test. It should be "life plus 60" instead of "life plus 50". --jdx Re: 10:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: I think that's with PD-old-auto, actually... you're right tho. I'll look at it. Reventtalk 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Revision of Template:PD-old-auto - as this is a widely used template (62k uses), it's going to take a while for the change to be processed by the job queue. Unpurged pages will continue to show 50 instead of 60 until it's done. Reventtalk 11:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Raquel Welch promo[edit]

Can someone review this front and back photo of Raquel Welch from 1966? It will only be posted online for a few more hours. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If that actual copy was distributed to the newspaper, as opposed to being a wire photo, it would be OK. If it was printed at the newspaper, and kept as part of its archive, the lack of a notice there would not mean anything. Are there other copies on the net which shows the origin was something other than a wire service? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't all the crop sizes and description of where it was to be located on the page ("TP TV Tab," referring to a tabular column,) be enough? At least enough to remove "significant doubt" that it was published? --Light show (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: I saved the page at https://web.archive.org/web/20160822122919/http://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=17524 so that it going away would not be a problem. FWIW, you should do this with all such sources. Reventtalk 12:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Montgomery promo[edit]

Can someone review this front and back photo of Elizabeth Montgomery from 1961. It will also be online for only a few more hours. --Light show (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that has evidence of distribution. If we know it was found in a newspaper archive and its origin was not a newspaper, that would help. But no indication on the photo itself of its origin or other provenance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It has a stamped date which is a month before the show aired. Decent evidence? --Light show (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Who stamped the date? If NBC, then no, it doesn't matter. We are looking to see that this copy changed hands from the copyright owner (presumably NBC) to someone else. It's not really a matter if it was published or not -- it probably was somewhere -- but rather if this copy was actually distributed, which is the only way the lack of notice is actually evidence to a lost copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
That's the first time I recall separating "publication" from "distribution." The copyright law definintions (link below) states that "Publication is the distribution...." That "The offering to distribute...constitutes publication." Implying they are not separate events. --Light show (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
They are not different, but publication *with* copyright notice did not lose copyright. So, you need to find a published copy without a notice. Is this one? The fact it was published elsewhere with notice does not help that argument. You are trying to prove that copyright was lost. If a particular copy never changes hands (i.e. no distribution), then lack of notice does not prove your aim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
OK, to avoid the question coming up again, can you explain why this image would be acceptable whereas the Montgomery one is not? They both seem to have similar information, and neither has proof it changed hands. Also, you wrote above that "publication *with* copyright notice did not lose copyright." Did you mean "without"?--Light show (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: The Spock image, from looking at the back, appears clearly to have been printed by NBC, with a fancy color logo, to be distributed directly to the public.... that would clearly constitute publication, once such copies were offered or actually distributed. It actually looks, from the perforations on the edge, to have been something like a postcard.
The difficulty that I think you are having is that the mere 'existence' of copies without a notice, even if those copies (years or decades later) come into the hands of the public, does not mean that they were actually published without notice. Many of the works you want to upload could easily have been mere file copies, that were never published in the form in which we are seeing them. Reventtalk 12:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You are correct that File:Leonard Nimoy as Spock 1967.jpg is not really any different, unless there was more info on the original eBay page. That could come in the form of where this copy came from (if the archive of a non-NBC entity), or another lower-resolution copy without notice on the web which itself has proof it was distributed, etc. You are right that the odds favor that copies like this were distributed at the time and are thus PD, but when it comes to proving beyond a reasonable doubt, it's borderline. If uploaded it may be kept, or maybe it would be nominated for deletion -- at that point it's on the admins to weigh the evidence, and I could see them going either way. U.S. photos 1964 or later are much much riskier since there is no possibility of PD-US-not renewed... if this was a pre-1964 photo I'd feel a lot more comfortable. If a third party makes use of this image, and then gets sued for copyright infringement, what proof could they offer in court? If we have no provenance information, then the uploaded image is all the evidence we have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger news photo from 1974[edit]

Can someone review this front and back photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger from 1974? --Light show (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Taken by Madison Square Garden... decent chance of being OK, but there is no evidence that copy was distributed on the back of it. So... what was the source? If from MSG archives, then it was never distributed and there is no way of determining copyright status. If from someone else's archive, then cool. Are there other copies on the net which better show distribution? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There were numerous muscle-builder magazines published back then, all of them defunct now. But few of their photos are on the web. And the few that are, don't say where the photo came from. But I'm also still unclear why the photo itself isn't evidence enough of publication, per Copyright definitions, ie. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. --Light show (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it was published. You are however claiming that copyright was lost by virtue of lack of notice on this copy. For that to be true, this copy must have been distributed itself. If a company marks copies with a copyright notice and distributes them, copyright was not lost, even if they also had private copies which had no notice, as long as those other private copies were never themselves distributed. If this was a private copy owned by MSG and never distributed, then it's not evidence of a lost copyright, which may then still exist. When there is a stamp of a separate organization on there, then that is an indication it changed hands. If we knew where this photo came from -- if it was basically anyone other than MSG, and they obtained the copy before 1989 -- then that would also be enough. Odds are pretty high this did not come from MSG directly to the online seller, meaning it probably was distributed without notice at the time and lost copyright, so I probably wouldn't argue to delete it myself -- but others might. Using images from 1964 and later is inherently much more dangerous copyright-wise, since there is no possibility of not being renewed, so it's best if the evidence is clear-cut. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy promo photo from 1975[edit]

Can someone review this front and back photo of Leonard Nimoy from 1975? --Light show (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure seems like that photo was used multiple times. Does not seem like a wire photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
As Carl notes, the image appears to have changed hands from the marks. This is at http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515177214 with the source given as Bettmann. That's the Bettmann Archive, and a copy there was quite likely obtained from publication in some form. The way in which Getty is marketing it somewhat implies that they think it's PD, though they don't actually say so, of course. Reventtalk 13:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Francis Ford Coppola photo from 1976[edit]

Can someone review this front and back photo of Francis Ford Coppola from 1976? --Light show (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Was this from an NBC archive, or somewhere else? It's not slam-dunk, but I'd lean OK, if we can be reasonably sure that the markings on the back were a newspaper or at least not NBC. If this was a private copy owned by NBC, then it was never distributed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The back shows the cropping size and the day it was to be published. It also says "rush," which implies they needed to get it published soon. --Light show (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There is another copy at http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1975-Famed-Hollywood-Director-Francis-Ford-Coppola-Wire-Photo-/300769412229 (in much poorer condition) and Getty has it here. Given the second copy, I think it's fair to assume this was distributed for publication. Reventtalk 13:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Beatles, 1965[edit]

Can someone review this front and back photo of The Beatles from 1965? --Light show (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

And another of them here, from 1964. --Light show (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The first one was taken by CBS, but that copy has no indication it was distributed. If the only copies actually distributed had a copyright notice, then copyright was never lost. If that copy was kept in the CBS archives until 1989 or later, then there is no evidence for PD status.
The second one is a wire photo. No back. No evidence at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. - is http://www.gettyimages.com/license/185199235 at Getty. Also used in an amplifier ad, and, oddly, in the University of Akron 1971 yearbook. Don't think either of those gives clear evidence of no notice, however.
  2. - there is not a chance in hell that AP did not protect their copyright in that (famous) image, which has been published by everyone from Time to the Christian Science Monitor to Rolling Stone to the BBC (and they all credit AP). See http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-New-York-United-/3c74622562e5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/107/0 and don't even think about uploading it. Reventtalk 14:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Albert Einstein photos[edit]

1. Can someone review this front and back photo of Einstein from 1933? --Light show (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

2. And another from 1932. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

3. Or this one from from 1933 as a deadly outlaw on the run. $5,000 bounty. --Light show (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

4. Until he found a temporary hideout in the UK with armed protection from some English friends. --Light show (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

First one looks fine. Second one... probably fine; would prefer evidence of actual distribution for that copy, but seems probable to be OK. Third one... taken in Belgium, though it says "exclusive photo" for a U.S. company, which may indicate it was first published there, and so may also be OK. The fourth one... comes from a UK source, so presumably the UK is the country of origin. If it was published in the U.S. within 30 days, it would avoid the URAA restoration. The N.E.A. date (which was part of Acme) seems to be less than two weeks after the photo was taken, which does seem to indicate it was likely published within 30 days. So, the question is if it qualifies for {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Is there any information on who the photographer was? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It was a news photo, similar to this one. Einstein was there for a few weeks at Locker-Lampson's invitation. It was likely published as part of a news story about his visit, although the location was kept out of print. --Light show (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure. But is the photographer known? You can't claim lack of copyright notice on this one since it's not a U.S. work; you have to show that it is PD in the UK today, and either that the URAA does not apply or that it was PD in the UK in 1996 -- and it was definitely under copyright in the UK in 1996, so you need to show why the URAA did not apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Various photo agencies all attribute each other in the usual shell game, but the BBC attributes the image as 'courtesy' of the son of the landowner, a couple of places. Might help tracking something down, though I had no luck beyond this. Reventtalk 08:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The date on the the BBC page is not accurate. It's not really wrong as they write circa 1934, but still, the year is 1933. The credit might not be complete either. It could be that Philip Colman shared with the BBC a copy he had of the photo. Other photos, apparently taken the same day of the same people, are credited to Leslie Cardew of the Daily Herald: there and there, which give the date 24 July 1933. Also uncredited and credited, which gives 12 September 1933, almost like the photo in the link by Light show, which gives 11 September 1933, but 11 and 12 September might be the later dates when Planet News (SSPL) distributed the photos taken on 24 July for the Daily Herald. It's possible that the place was open on that day to other media and photos taken by different photographers. It's possible also that on that day it was an exclusive story for the Daily Herald and the photos were all taken by Leslie Cardew. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The BBC image is slightly different -- almost the same instant, but the angle is different (see the tree in back and positions of participants), and Einstein's hand is on the horse's forehead in one, and behind the head in another. So there were likely a group of photographers there, or perhaps a family member (Colman) along with someone from the press. If there is a named author, the work is most likely still under copyright. The back of the photo has a credit to Planet News Ltd., and later the Acme stamp. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
You're right, it's not the same, though clearly within a couple of minutes. Reventtalk 12:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The first of these was uploaded by Light show at File:Einstein 1933.jpg, and I've now sent it to DR as the New York Daily News not only attributes it to one of their employees, but explicitly claims it was copyrighted as late as 2000. Reventtalk 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
And withdrawn, now that we have (clearly) enough evidence to discount the Daily News here. Reventtalk 12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart photo[edit]

Can someone review this front and back photo of Amelia Earhart from 1932? --Light show (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright and deleted files[edit]

I have been attempting to upload photos from my files to an article in my sandbox. Three have been deleted, but others have been accepted using the same criteria. I did receive a message from Magog the Orge stating these three lacked the correct copyright tag {{PD-Self}} and I thought I had added it. How can I recall these files to check them for what happened? Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

In File:Hidalgo carved by Frank 96dpi.jpg, it looks like you used [[PD-self]] instead of {{PD-self}} (i.e. square brackets used for links instead of curly braces used for templates). However, that is a claim that you yourself took the photograph, which seems plainly false for that photo. So, those would be deleted for an invalid tag as well. With your other text, you would be claiming {{PD-US-not renewed}} it would seem. For a photo of a statue, it gets worse there would be the copyright of the photo (which would be PD if not renewed), plus the copyright of the statue itself, which would be unclear. Seems unlikely that the second copyright was renewed, either, but that is harder to search for if not known when the statue was first published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I entered some photos through your wizard using similar criteria. Magog the Orge contacted me about entry errors on four of them. I corrected these errors on their edit pages, but they still deleted. I don't understand what the problem is. Please advise as what is wrong and how it can be corrected.

I tried reentering three of them under new file names, but they rejected and were sent to a special upload slash file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janice M. Ladendorf (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

YouTube CC license and TOS[edit]

Please see this thread and let us know if there's an easy answer or if the conversation should be moved here. --NeilN (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If a video is validly marked as CC-BY, that is a separate license than that granted by the terms of service. The terms of the latter would not matter here (since that is non-free), but if also licensed CC-BY, then it is OK, including captures. Captures could picture other copyrighted works, which would be de minimis in terms of the video as a whole but possibly not for an individual capture. In general though, that should be fine. As always, be very careful that the YouTube uploader is actually the copyright owner, and it was not simply reposted from elsewhere (Commons:License laundering). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

copyright in an image part of legislation in the Netherlands[edit]

I am considering re-uploading (or requesting undeletion) of an image of a visa present in Dutch secondary legislation on the Dutch legislation website. The deletion discussion didn't give me a very clear view on why it was deleted, and the deleting admin (user:INeverCry) referred to the proposer of the deletion ((user:Stefan2/User:Stefan4) as he is very experienced in the matter. As he seems inactive for the past month, on suggestion of INeverCry, I am placing the matter here to have some input on the matter. For practical reasons I am repeating the request to Stefan below. His argument for deletion was "Bogus copyright tag" (possibly because passports images etc don't normally fall under it; as they are not printed as part of legislation? or because the tag was somehow bogus?); the result of the deletion discussion was "Deleted". L.tak (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Caribbean visa image[edit]

He Stefan,

I am sorry to bother you so long after, but over year ago, you nominated File:VisumKonderNedCaribischGebied.png for deletion stating that the copyright tag used was not ok. There was no further discussion and the image was deleted by user:INeverCry. I have asked him to look into the deleted file in order to re-assess whether the deletion was required.

  • The image was found at the Dutch legislation website wetten.nl as part of the "Regeling Toelating", a piece of secondary legislation.
  • Deletion discussion was at Commons:Deletion requests/File:VisumKonderNedCaribischGebied.png
  • The tag was template:PD-NL-Gov/nl, to be used for all works made by or on behalf of the Government (Article 15 Copyright Act).
  • In case of legislation, both Article 11 (all laws and directives are copyright free) and Article 15b of the Dutch Copyright Act are legal basis to consider it copyright free

Based on this info I'd say this image is free of copyright because it is part of legislation. Would you based on this reconsider your view on the matter; or indicate where in your view this evaluation is incorrect? L.tak (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The description page of the file should not have used the page "Template:PD-NL-Gov/nl" as a template. It should have used "Template:PD-NL-Gov" (which, since 2010, was a redirection to "Template:PD-NL-Gov/en"). You'll find the explanation about the deletion of the file on the page "Template:PD-NL-Gov/en". In short, that template was deleted three years ago, in 2013. See "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NL-Gov/en". The page "Template:PD-NL-Gov/nl" should have been deleted also, but apparently the admin forgot to delete it. The files that had been tagged with that template had to be either relicensed when possible or deleted. The file was deleted in 2015. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a technicality then. Thanks for clearing that up! L.tak (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Re-reading the discussion it is more than a technicality but an interpretation of Dutch law to not include derivative works. I don't think I agree (if you look at the history of the Dutch copyright act in 100 years ago, I am sure this was not in mind; and the point of the legislator has to be interpreted here), but I didn't check the travaux preparatoires... Anyway, the way out was also given in that deletion discussion: CC0 as with all gov-published works... L.tak (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's the idea of relicensing. The rationale to say that something from the NL government is in the public domain in the NL can't be based on the articles of the NL copyright law that were invoked in the deleted template, because it is not what those articles of the law say. But when the NL government owned the copyright on a work, the rationale to say that that work is in the public domain in the NL can be based on a declaration of voluntary release in the public domain made by the NL government. You already discussed this subject in 2014 on this page and you actually relicensed at least this file. It's the same principle. Just provide on the description page enough information and links to allow readers to check that the tag you use reflects the correct status of the image. The problem with the deleted template was not about derivative works. That was discussed but it was not the reason for the deletion. The problem was that the law says that the works are copyrighted and that their author retains exclusive rights on some types of uses. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I had already an idea I had been at this before, but couldn't remember how exactly. It is good it worked out now. So what needs to be done now is to remove this Template:PD-NL-Gov/nl or redirect it, or use it solely for the Article 11 exception (which is very explicit in stating laws etc are not subject to copyright). I have done the latter for now as a quick fix. Feel free to further tweak or to choose one of the other options... L.tak (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that explains the "bogus copyright tag" comment by the nominator of the DR, then referring to this use of the tag "PD-ineligible". -- Asclepias (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Libreaim[edit]

Hi,

Special:Contributions/Libreaim: this user has uploaded a lot of slides. In his late uploads, after 2016-06-09, the image often include a CC BY-NC-SA tag and "Created by : Ganesh" followed by an email address. For those images, the file entry on Commons is placed under CC BY-SA 4.0 as an own work. What I think about it:

  • The NC of CC BY-NC-SA seems incompatible with the commercial commercial usage authorized by CC BY-SA 4.0;
  • Libreaim must prove that he is Ganesh if he wants to change the licence or to claim being the source.

I thought starting with prepending all the CC BY-NC-SA ones with {{wrong licence|1=The image says "CC BY-NC-SA" in which NC (non commercial) is incompatible with the commercial usage authorized by CC BY-SA 4.0.}} through a batch task but

  1. there is so many files that I don't want to make a mistake;
  2. there is so many remaining images without the CC BY-NC-SA but with the same layout and style that I feel missing something.

Please, what should be done?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Were these previously published elsewhere? If so, OTRS is a requirement, for sure. Otherwise, you could argue that they are simply a multi-license, although having the license (especially NC license) embedded in the image isn't great. Ideally we'd crop those out, for our usage. On the third hand, there may well be scope issues with those. Not sure what those would illustrate, as they seem like presentation slides that are mostly text. There are graphics on a number of them though with unknown provenance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg:
Hard to find but some have already been published elsewhere:
https://discuss.fsftn.org/t/1-how-systems-work-together-sunglasses/715 contains File:System Integration.png.
--Lacrymocéphale (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

UK coat of arms[edit]

While I dislike copyright paranoia, I've just noticed that according to Nationalarchives.gov.uk, the royal arms of the UK has a limited scope of allowed usage which precludes Wikipedia and that "any other use or re-use of the Royal Arms, or part of the Royal Arms, or Crest is not permitted". Yet File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg has a free user license. Could someone clarify this? In WP, there was a similar issue with the copyrighted Canadian coat of arms. Brandmeister (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

How old is that coat of arms and who did actually draw our version? Coats of arms are not like a logo, their are a concept that different artists can interpret differently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
From a copyright perspective, the UK can only control specific renditions that government artists make. Another artist can make their own rendition, and that artist would own the copyright of that version, and can license it if they so choose. That is what happened here, and is the same with the Canadian arms (en-wiki uses the official Canadian rendition under fair use, and Commons hosts a different user-drawn version. As long as they conform to the written specifications (the blazon), they are all valid coat of arms (see Commons:Coats of arms). Additionally, the UK has heraldry laws which define who can inherit arms, and use them, etc. -- those are probably what the restrictions you link to are based on, but separate from copyright, only apply inside the UK, and are Commons:non-copyright restrictions so they don't affect the "free" status. Obviously, if you are a UK user, you need to be careful about how you use the "free" versions as well. In a trademark or arms sense, "use" is different than the copyright "use", and usually means to use the mark in such a way to indicate a relationship with the entity in question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Faye Dunaway photo[edit]

Can I get a review of Fay Dunaway photo from 1975? It has front and back, and it's a UPI press photo. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And another original of her here.

With one more original as a backup, which has numerous stampings on the reverse. --Light show (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

At least the last, I think the answer is clearly no, because of [1], [2], and [3], all promotional material for the same film, with clear copyright notices in an area not visible in the given image. Yours might be okay, but we cannot see the entire front. Will look at the others. Reventtalk 18:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This one is credited to Henry Grossman. Indeed, not much about the copyright status can be said from this copy if we don't know if and how much of the sides were cropped. By the way, Commons has three photos by Henry Grossman, from theatre plays. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The second, also clearly no, since looking at the full-size image (from the link you gave) there is a copyright notice for Columbia Pictures visible. Please don't start trying to argue if it's a defective notice or not.... please just look before asking in the future. Reventtalk 18:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The first... I'm really not thrilled with being unable to see all of the front or back, tbh. Reventtalk 19:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

New PD license template[edit]

After having a number of images of 'recent' Jordanian coins and banknotes pointed out to me, and starting a DR for many, I created {{PD-Jordan-money}}. Feedback appreciated. Thanks. Reventtalk 10:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiganotomo-casquedor-nov1952.jpg[edit]

Hi! What is your opinion about this file? Is {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} a legitim license for a movie poster of a French film? --Regasterios (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For the original poster, yes. The French translation may have a separate copyright on the text, or the poster may have been modified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Image updated with a copyvio[edit]

Hi,

I just reverted File:Poltorak stepan.jpg because the second proposed version is too far from the first one. And I've discovered that this 2nd version might be a copyright infringement; It can be found on several website like here where it has the same size (960x1316). Can this second version be hidden?

(Is there a better place or a tag to ask for the hiding of a specific file revision?)

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I have no idea what he did to get people so excited (I don't read Ukranian) but with over 30 hits for that image with it being here less than half an hour, there is no way that's not a copyvio. As far as asking, there's not really an 'official' way for anything but removing a non-free frame, because of the 'Streisand effect'. IRC is best if it's anything urgent/personal. Reventtalk 00:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, apparently he's the new defense minister. For some reason that seems to mean he needs an odd variety of moustaches, lol. Reventtalk 00:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Inkscape 0.48.2 with Red Gallardo.svg et al.[edit]

The uploader claims derivative File:Inkscape 0.48.2 (2).svg to be own work, but there's no such statement at original version at File:Inkscape 0.48.2.svg. File:Inkscape 0.48.2 with Red Gallardo.svg is a derivative work of both.

The license status of File:Inkscape Logo.svg and File:Inkscape logo 2.svg is a mix of potentially incompatible GPLv2+ and CC-BY-SA licenses, explained in one of the license descriptions by User:Tomchen1989. These logos are also used in the work.

This makes up for a lot of confusion what license the logos and derivative works like title should be released under. I've tried doing my best to address any issues with copyright concerns on those pages, but some license changes are done in good faith but illegitimately because I didn't publish a derivative work. Note that the uploader also never published their own license statement, so I've added GPLv2+ or GPLv3-only/CC-BY-SA-4.0 implicitly based on permission of original files used in the derivative works. There is very little source information and some of the original attributions were unsmart, such as "The Inkscape Team" which I've since attributed to the AUTHORS file or another author where known.

Last contribution by uploader (User:Jfd34) here on Commons was in 2014.

See also:

The mentioned proxy is not tagged into the files, and as far as I know there's no template on Commons for this.

Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well. 80.221.159.67 09:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

These derived works also have conflicting licenses and missing authorship or source information:

Done all I could there. 80.221.159.67 16:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-free revisions of File:Inkscape0.45.png[edit]

According to File talk:Inkscape0.45.png, the three revisions of this work available on Commons have metadata of CC-BY-NC-SA (unknown version). If true, this is out of scope. Those screenshots were also captured on Windows XP, which is non-free. Could you apply oversight to hide these revisions? 80.221.159.67 12:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

They are not out of scope but copyright violations. We do not apply oversight in such case - simple deletion is sufficient. Ruslik (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, how is this different from #Image updated with a copyvio discussion on this page? Nevermind that I've not determined yet if there's licensing issues in the revisions with a yellow car. 80.221.159.67 19:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It was hidden, not oversighted. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons Licensed file with non-free images[edit]

This is an issue I originally raised on the English-language WikiSource, but it was suggested that I ask here. I apologize if this is already covered somewhere in documentation/policy, but I was unable to find it.

The scenario is as follows. I wish to upload the investigation reports by the Australian government authority that investigates aviation accidents, the ATSB. According to the ATSB website, the reports are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, with the exception that the following are not released under that license: "the Coat of Arms, the ATSB logo, photos and graphics in which a third party has copyright". (The copyright statements, in full, are here.) The CC-3.0 part which should be ok based on Commons:Licensing, but I'm uncertain about the non-free images part.

Since the CC license allows for "remixing", is the appropriate action to remove the non-free images from the scan prior to uploading it, maybe replacing it with a placeholder image of some sort ("non-free image" in a box, sort of placeholder)? Or can the file be uploaded as-is? Or am I misunderstanding entirely and the file cannot be hosted on Commons at all? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Mukkakukaku This is a confusing issue that is not specifically covered anywhere. I faced the same issue with a video that was CC licensed but contained a few seconds of non-free content. That discussion is at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/05#Advice_on_noting_non-free_logo_animations_in_freely_licensed_videos. Separately, I was working with a old public domain book which contained some new copyrighted commentary in a contemporary reprinting. That discussion is at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/08#book_upload_-_public_domain_reprint_-_redacting_newer_content.
Yes, the CC license allows remixing, and yes, you can remove the non-free content from the file to create a totally free work. It is also correct that a file with non-free components cannot be hosted in Commons unless the non-free parts are removed. As you say, if you remove the non-free parts then Commons can host the file. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Files allegedly authored by rebel/terrorist groups[edit]

Numerous files are uploaded to commons attributed to rebel/terrorist groups such as ISIL. We know that such groups are not inside the Berne Convention, nor their copyright laws are sufficiently known. What should we do regarding these files, considering the very fact that per Precautionary principle, where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. --Mhhossein talk 06:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Syria is a member of the Berne convention; Iraq is not. Regardless, copyright laws have never been designed with a war zone and forcible changes in who gets to enforce laws in mind, so I am inclined to call them "unknown copyright status". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to call them copyrighted materials. The files seems to fall under files we should delete per our long standing policy. This is not a PD work and the fact that their author is unknown or difficult to identify is not a valid reason to keep them here. For example, the author of this work needs to send permission to our support team. Thus, if we can't get a permission from its author, there is no point keeping them here. Wikicology (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a fact that this rebel/terrorist claim to be independent and to tend/want to apply only its "own law". It is also a fact that no text laws edited by them about their "copyright law" is available for us, nor, if this text law exist, it have a chance to be recognized internationally. Our policy demands that a file must be free United States and in the source country. The files have been created outside the constraints of the copyright law textes of the countries concerned, e.g. nor Syria neither Iraq do not recognize the document (medias) created by the rebel/terrorist groups. Therefore we have no textes to determine the copyright statut of such medias. I fully agree to apply PRP and to delete all full content created by this rebel/terrorist group. On a more personal level, I will also be happy that content created by "these persons" be not next to my photos, I mean sometimes it's hard to remain neutral, I saw no shame in that. But even if neutral point of view is in our policies, it is a fact that the copyright statut is very unclear. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should apply COM:PRP with these, and be very careful with COM:TOO. Keep votes in DRs of these logos by non-Arabic speakers/readers are questionable at best. How do they know what's simple and what's calligraphy? Also, permission isn't an option, unless someone from OTRS really feels comfortable communicating with terrorists/possible terrorists, which is illegal in most countries. Any email from Nusra (as mentioned above) would have to be forwarded to WMF Legal, and then probably to the NSA. We certainly wouldn't get an OTRS ticket out of it. INeverCry 17:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's a DR for the Nusra flag/logo: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jabhat al-Nusra flags. INeverCry 17:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What about svg recreations of some of these files? I've noticed files which look like non-free logos being used in infoboxes/list articles about these groups or the conflicts they are involved in such as en:List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War and , but quite a number of them are svg versions uploaded to Commons under a free license. For example, en:File:National Defence Force Syria Logo.jpg was uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free, yet File:Flag of the National Defense Force.svg and File:Flag of the National Defense Force (Variant).svg are uploaded to Commons under {{PD-textlogo}}, and File:Národní obranné jednotky insignie.png was uploaded as "own work" (FWIW, Special:Contributions/Grozo20 all seem to be fair use files claimed as "own work" and probably need to be checked). There many other examples of this and it's a bit hard to understand how the basically the same image can be non-free for Wikipedia, but PD for Commons. Does simply creating a svg version of a copyrighted logo/flag mean the original copyright no longer is applicable? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the both images above for deletion, as I can't see how they can be below TOO, and if some SVG codes can have their own copyright, that don't surpass the original artwork.... Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Saturnino Urios.jpg[edit]

The file's description says "The sketch picture of Fr. Saturnino Urios, S.J.", but I'm not exactly sure what that means. I guess it could mean that uploader drew/painted this and then took a photograph of it, but it also might just be a photograph of a painting on display somewhere at en:Father Saturnino Urios University since the person pictured was the president of the university from 1900-1914. If this is not "own work" of the uploader, then it might be old enough to be public domain depending upon when it was created and when the person who painted it died, right? Anyway, it seems to me that the claim of "own work" should be at least verified by OTRS, but I am interested in hearing what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No correspondence has been sent to our support team, thus there is no way they can verify if this is uploader's own work or not. That being said, I don't see any clear evidence to suggest the painting is not their own work even if it is not. The uploader does not have any history of copyvios and there is no evidence of the use of multiple camera model. Wikicology (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank for taking a look Wikicology. I believe the uploader took the photo, but not sure they created what they photograph. As for no history of copyvios, there was en:User talk:Anitnovic2016#Wikipedia and copyright in which quite a bit of copyrighted text added by the uploader had to be removed from an article, but maybe that's a bit like comparing en:apples and oranges. Do we need to show that the painting is clearly not the uploader's own work or does the uploader need to clearly show that it is his own work? COM:PCP seems to imply we should err on the side of caution when things are unclear, doesn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Paintings on a large hardboard or wood are often difficult to digitized unless it is photographed. This may actually be the user's own work, thus I won't rush to take it to DR. I'll assume good faith. Pinging Revent for an insight. Wikicology (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Understand. For reference, I wasn't thinking of DR; just thought that maybe it should be tagged with {{npd}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason to doubt that the uploader took the photograph, but I'm extremely dubious that the depicted painting isn't on display somewhere at the university. I can't find any other images of it, so no 'proof', but it seems rather unlikely that it was painted by the uploader. Probably worth at least asking the uploader to explain, yes. Reventtalk 13:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I asked them here. Wikicology (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bruce Ariss.JPG[edit]

How to deal with this statement? --jdx Re: 10:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This seem like a legal issue that needs to be forwarded to the WMF legal team. The photo in question looks like a professional photograph. However, with a quick Google search, I found a linkedin profile with the name "Beth Peerless" who is a photographer but I'm a bit reluctant in linking their personal information here.  The image in question was uploaded here by User:Mark Miller in July 2007,  Beth Peerless claimed they took the image in 1994. The image Metadata shows that it was taken with FujiFILM camera, model FinePix S2950. Miller appears to have use the same camera model in taken other Images like this and this image. Other camera model Miller have used in the the images they uploaded as "own work" that I randomly checked includes: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi, Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi, FujiFilm FinePix S2950, FinePix S2950, Sony DSC-T100 and "SANYO DIGITAL CAMERA  GH2" owned by Lt. Gavin Newsom. Analysis of User:Mark Miller contributions shows they registered account here on March 27, 2007 with 1000+ edits with over 50 images. It also appears that User: Mark Miller is editing under their real name. With a quick Google search, I found someone online who bears the same name with User:Mark Miller who appears to be a photographer and owns a blog that has to do with photography. I won't link that here as well. Per our precautionary principle I'm a bit reluctant in assuming that Beth will not bother to sue or cannot afford to sue. This is why I think this would be best handled by the WMF legal team. I understand that users are responsible for their actions especially in issues related to files they uploaded as "own work". Wikicology (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
FYI, I left a not at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Note. Wikicology (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted the file per PCP. The camera EXIF at least cannot be from the original picture. The camera model was introduced in 2011, while the picture indeed seems to have been taken no later than 1994, given the fact that Bruce Ariss seems to be alive in the picture. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It probably should have gone to a discussion. The upload is just a photographic copy; if the original is indeed licensed that is all fine. It's the original license from 2007 which is in question, and don't think that qualifies for immediate deletion. Even a speedy tag would wait 7 days. The file has been here for years; we could at least see if the uploader has a response before deleting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The file has issues as-is. It was uploaded after the COM:GOF cutoff, yet claims the photo is owned by a third party who "authorized it's duplication and use with limited copyright release", but there is no OTRS confirmation of such. That was still early in the OTRS process, but the file was uploaded with a claim of someone else being the photographer (correctable), but no real confirmation as to what license was actually allowed. Authorizing "duplication and use with limited copyright release" does not sound like a free license, and does not explicitly name the GFDL and CC licenses currently named. The second upload looks like a photograph of another copy. The uploader is still somewhat active, so it would be best to ask them -- but it would be within policy to start a deletion review. Especially given that someone not named now claims to be the photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - @Jdx, Jcb, Clindberg: Do we have enough reasons to trust other images uploaded by Mark Miller? Can we open a copyright investigations on images uploaded by this user? Their use of multiple camera model like Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi, Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi, FujiFilm FinePix S2950, FinePix S2950, Sony DSC-T100 and "SANYO DIGITAL CAMERA  GH2" owned by Lt. Gavin Newsom and the report by Beth is not a good signal to me. IMO there is need to investigate Miller's uploads to prevent related issues like this that may arise in the future. This is not a punitive measure but a preventive measure. Let me know what you think. Wikicology (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)