Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Community portal
introduction
Help desk 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.
 

Neil Diamond, 1977 press photo[edit]

Can someone check this NBC photo from 1977, which shows the back? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK to assume a photo is likely PD if there is no response after nearly a week? And I'm still fine with deleting it after it's uploaded if there's a valid concern that can't be dealt with.--Light show (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
http://outlet.historicimages.com/products/rsb52179 is another copy, with evidence of publication and no copyright notice. I think this is fine. Reventtalk 01:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. --Light show (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright of record side labels in the UK[edit]

I want to upload one of the images. However, due to UK's low threshold of originality, I want to know whether it is okay. --George Ho (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No replies? I wanted to upload a side label containing an orange background and an RCA logo. Is the text protected by UK copyright law? --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Such generic descriptive text isn't copyrightable (there is nothing original about it). There 'would' have been a 25 year typographical copyright, but it's expired. Reventtalk 18:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded the image as File:Heroes by David Bowie UK vinyl single.jpg, Revent. --George Ho (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Logo of Portrait Records[edit]

I want to upload this image. Usually, handwritings are not copyrightable. Is the logo no exception? --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The logo is PD, per {{PD-textlogo}}, like the M$ logo at left.
Microsoft logo (1987)
As for an image of the whole record, I think things are less clear. We have similar works like File:Minnesota_Tax_Cut_Rally_2011_(5697256303).jpg (on the right) that have survived a deletion nomination. But I'm not sure it should have. Arguably/Perhaps, {{PD-text}} is appropriate. --Elvey (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I changed the info at en:File:Portrait logo.png. The SVG is needed. --George Ho (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Elvey: The text on the record label is just 'factual information'... there is no copyrightable originality there. Also, it was published in 1983 with no copyright notice (the circle P is regarding the recording itself). Reventtalk 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Searching commons by image? Reporting copyvio.[edit]

I posted User_talk:Lglswe#Harrison_Crawford_of_RantCars.com_is_an_IP_thief.3F but how do I most quickly find the other photos/authors? --Elvey (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: Commons:User scripts/File Analyzer sometimes works, but it looks like the images have been edited, so reverse image searches (via Google) are probably most likely to be the easiest.
There's also that Lamborghini logo on the first page, but it's cropped way down from a CC0 image from here.. I didn't search it down on Commons. I'd suggest you first just poke the person about proper attribution... citing 'us' at least shows some degree of a desire to act correctly. Reventtalk 02:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

uploads by 41IBCTIO[edit]

I really doubt if the uploads by this user be an own work. --Mhhossein talk 15:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Any reason why you doubt the uploads to be "own work"? Wikicology (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, the author has done both this and this one. There must be a very wide time period between them. That raises my doubt, although the photographer could be old now. --Mhhossein talk 17:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. We can't tell if "User:I am two years old" was actually born two year ago unless we know their real identity. Uploader may be 80+ old. Who knows? This images may not be eligible for deletion per our precautionary principle unless there are convincing evidences that uploader is not the author. Wikicology (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
They look like official US military portraits. --ghouston (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
why don't you interact with the uploader and suggest use of photograph template, and source = website where they got them. it's probably some milhist blog, ultimate source national archives. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Ghouston that "they "look like official US military portraits" and seem to be rather unlikely to be the uploader's own work. However, if they're official US military portraits, we can keep them - just not as the uploader's claimed "own work" with CC-BY-SA-4.0, but as PD-USGov. Probably the uploader just didn't quite understand how things work here. - Regarding the more general remarks, of course there are older uploaders and I know some active Wikipedians who are older than 80 years. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Given the 'own work', the username, and the subject matter, it seems plausible that this is a role account for the National Guard unit. The 'own work' claims seem rather obviously misguided, though. Reventtalk 02:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Musée d'Orsay[edit]

Is it legal to upload an image from the Museum d´Orsay web page, like the one we can see at the page below?

[1]

Thank you! Saudações,GualdimG (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, see COM:ART. -- King of ♠ 02:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This needs the clarification: if the depicted work of art is itself in the public domain (in this case, the license would be {{PD-Art|PD-Portugal-URAA |deathyear= 1939}}), and if the image does not include the frame (if it does, it needs to be cropped out). Reventtalk 03:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Piper Laurie, 1951[edit]

I did a search for this publicity photo from 1977-present and found nothing renewed and only a single visual item from 1997. Does it seem OK? --Light show (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: The image shows a 1951 copyright notice. While you're probably correct that it was not renewed, I really don't feel comfortable with making that assumption... it's better to find the original registration in such cases, and then verify a failure to renew by the actual registration number. Reventtalk 04:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
That's easy enough. But please recall that in the U.S., "publicity photos taken to promote a film actor or other celebrity were not usually copyrighted prior to 1989." I can search anyway, but which years do you want me to check? --Light show (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked 1951 and 1952 and came up with nothing copyrighted with her name used. --Light show (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Carl Reiner, 1960[edit]

I did a search for 1978-present for this photo and came up with nothing. Does it seem OK? --Light show (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: This is the same answer as above, really... try to find the original registration, and then verify the lack of renewal by searching for it by number (and then, preferably, give specific details of the search when uploading). Reventtalk 04:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
There was no need to register, so registration may not exist. Any renewal for a 1960 work should be online at www.copyright.gov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Right, I'm just dubious about such a search finding it even if it exists, since we can't read the name of the copyright owner. Looking for a registration gives a more 'comprehensive' search (though tedious). Reventtalk 19:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The copyright notice is for "Loew's Incorporated". Successor in interest was Turner Entertainment. I don't see any photographs renewed, or books or serials likely to contain it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Is it safe to upload? If not, what should I search for? --Light show (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I did a full search for 1960 and 1961. --Light show (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Composition of uncredited images[edit]

Hi,

File:Itinerario unesco arabo normanno di Palermo - Infografica.png is composed of uncredited images like http://www.touristico.it/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/cattedrale-di-palermo1.jpg (seems copyrighted), http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/80000/velka/vintage-palermo-travel-poster.jpg (public domain) or File:Palermo-Ponte-Ammiraglio-bjs2007-01.jpg. What to do with that?

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a kind of clue in https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Arab-Norman_Palermo_and_the_Cathedral_Churches_of_Cefal%C3%B9_and_Monreale&action=history
The user tries to add http://blog.divinohotel.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Itinerario-unesco-arabo-normanno-di-Palermo-Infografica.png to the category
Despite the infinite-scroll, the footer says "Copyright 2016 Divino Hotel [...] Tutti i diritti riservati".
I think it's a copyvio. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This was indeed deleted by Yann as a copyvio. Such 'external' collages are generally not okay, since they don't attribute the sources... COM:Collages talks about how to create your own in a workable manner. Reventtalk 04:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Thank you for the COM:Collages link. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Software output images[edit]

Could someone please verify that images such as File:ATR FTIR of Hexane.png and File:HPLC readout for APAP, ASA, and caffeine mixture.png are fine to be here? Question was raised during a featured article review on enwiki. The output is a standardized format for these types of instruments and I'm not seeing anything original there but I was asked to double check. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. You created them, did you not? Therefore, if there is any creative work involved in them, it's yours. Certainly a standard graph layout is not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: The question was whether or not the company that created the software that created the graph has any copyright claim over the output of said software. --Majora (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The graph is boilerplate, and the software running on the machine doesn't impart any more copyrightable material than a camera's software or PhotoShop.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok great. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Majora: To be more specific, copyright requires a specific identifiable aspect of human authorship... the output of a purely mechanical process (software) cannot be copyrighted. Reventtalk 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Tim Arnold, Soho Theatre, 23rd September 2012 by Iain Reid.png[edit]

File is uploaded from Twitter and licensed as {{cc-by-2.0}}, but the source url for image shows that it is licensed as "All rights reserved" which is not acceptable for Commons. The file's uploader appears to be a new editor might not be familiar with COM:L. Should this be tagged as {{No permission since}} or as {{Copyvio}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: {{Unfree Flickr file}}, which is a speedy. Reventtalk 05:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking Revent. File was actually deleted a few days ago for being an "Unfree Flickr file". -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Yeah, I just wanted to be sure you saw the template to use, since it was hidden in the deleted history. Reventtalk 08:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Although I knew the reason for the deletion, I did not know the template which had been used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios on ideen.wikimedia.de[edit]

On the page https://ideen.wikimedia.de/ and https://ideen.wikimedia.de/project/die-lutherstadt-wittenberg-im-reformationsjubilum-1 there are some of our fellow contributors' works re-used without licensing / without correct licensing:

What could we possibly do to help wikimedia.de respect our work? --SI 08:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  • sigh* :'(
If even the chapters can't follow the license requirements, who will do it? Yann (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Interesting case. It seems that the page solicits ideas from the community. Each idea is probably created by a community member and that member is responsible for image attribution etc. In some projects that worked ([2]), in some projects it didn't ([3]). That leaves the problem that there are non-clickable banner images and that the submission are not vetted for those problems on what looks like an official site. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I sent an e-mail to community@wikimedia.de (from the imprint) with a link to this discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the e-mail. Indeed the project creator is responsible for the attribution. We will enhance the attribution advice for project initiators and the actual attribution for the images. --Verena Lindner (WMDE) (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Flying Spaghetti Monster.svg[edit]

I don't know what to make of the licence for this file. It is tagged with {{Cc-zero}} but the source page has this ambiguous statement when you hover your mouse over the PD sticker below the image: "Copyright (c) 2015 dopplerduck . Public Domain (PD)". So it is not Creative Commons zero, but then, if it is in the public domain how can it still be copyrighted to the author? Should we use a generic {{PD-author}} instead? De728631 (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The "Copyright (c) 2015 Foobar" is just a default notice placed by the template. If the author decided to give the copyright (release into the PD), then, it should prevail over the default notice. This is just a website design problem and not a Copyright issue: just pick random files at https://inkscape.org/en/gallery and you will see "Copyright (c) 2015 Foobar" on every file, followed by a valid license; digging deeper, the HTML title attribute conteins the "Copyright (c) 2015 Foobar" followed by a valid license, but the alt attribute lacks of it, having only the valid license. Therefore, as the file was released into the PD, then, {{PD-author}} should be the right license tag rather than {{CC-0}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the input. I was also suspecting something like a default copyright tag stemming from the website. Going to change the licence tag to PD-author over here. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
And an approach before closing this thread: "Copyright" does not mean non-free; "All Rirghst Reserved" means non-free. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. w:All rights reserved means the exact same thing as "copyright"; it is part of ancient legal formula to assert that copyright applies to a work. By themselves, they mean a work is non-free, but with a proper license, they mean nothing special.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • One cannot both reserve all rights and give some of those rights away. That's a fundamental contradiction in terms. LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
It's also a pro forma statement under the w:Buenos Aires Convention which was required to simply declare that copyright exists (much like a U.S. copyright notice did in that country). So, it does not necessarily have the literal meaning of the words -- they needed that phrase to claim copyright, after which they can license that copyright. Creative Commons played off of that term with "some rights reserved", but really, that phrase is probably more equivalent to a statement that copyright exists. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
For one, one could reserve all rights given under law, as required, and then once having done so and acquired the rights, then license them. For another, a strict reading of that violates how the phrase is actually used. A book near me is copyright by Temperance Brennan, LLC, and says "All rights reserved", but nonetheless they licensed rights to Bantam Books to publish the book, and presumably licensed rights to others to translate it and publish it in other countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • See the Copyright notice in any software licensed under a free license (MediaWiki API script for example), there is the answer for what "(c) Copyright <year> <author>" means. Even, the GNU General Public License requires a proper Copyright notice insude both the source and resulting programa, or at least the COPYING or the LICENSE file; the BSD, ISC, MIT and Apache license should also include the Copyright notice (and this is why these licenses-related templates include the Copyright notice at the very beign of the text.
In ither words "(c) Copyright <year> <author> is just the Copyright notice; "All rights reserved", "Creative Commons Attribution" or "You can distribute and modify it under the GNU General Public License" are the actual licensing. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Did you read the pages that Clindberg and I linked to? Up until around 1990, there were nations where potentially "© <year> <author>" was not enough to gain copyright; a notice like "all rights reserved" was required. It's largely been moot for decades, probably since around 1960 for most non-South American authors, but it's still used. Just like "© <year> <author>", since there are no nations left that are signers to UCC and not Berne or TRIPS, both of which require nations not to have formalities on copyright. (Admittedly, Kuwait became a UCC member in 1995 and joined the Berne Convention in 2014, so it's only been a couple years where that was completely and throughly obsolete.) People write these things because it's the legal formalities they're familiar with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The be pedantic, en:All rights reserved explains... "The requirement to add the "all rights reserved" notice became essentially obsolete on August 23, 2000, when Nicaragua became the final member of the Buenos Aires Convention to also become a signatory to the Berne Convention. As of that date, every country that was a member of the Buenos Aires Convention (which is the only copyright treaty requiring this notice to be used) was also a member of Berne, which requires protection be granted without any formality of notice of copyright." The phrase "todos los derechos reservados" was equivalent, and also common. The actual requirement was not the phrase itself, but a 'statement of reservation of rights'. Reventtalk 05:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Coat of arms from wiki[edit]

There is an alternative coat of arms that was uploaded to a wiki with the text "the total or partial copying [of this document] is authorized to any organization or person [so long as that entity] gives proper recognition to [the document's] authors." I cannot find this coat elsewhere, so I presume it was created for this wiki. Is it acceptable to upload it here? The image in question is the last one here: http://www.futparaguay.com/2016/02/escudos-de-instituciones-futbol.html. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Derivative works? The 'moral rights' of the author would seem to prohibit that (specifically, the right to integrity of the work) and not allow it to be here. Reventtalk 05:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I wasn't clear on if a personal drawing of the original coat was considered enough of a derivative to qualify as a derivative work per COM:COA. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: While I admittedly have not looked into this particular one in depth, in general the 'official' coat of arms is actually a 'blazon'... a description of the coat of arms in heraldic language. Any specific depiction of that blazon would be original enough (in general) to merit a copyright claim, assuming that it's not pieced together from PD bits. When a 'coat of arms' is PD as an official work, it's merely that particular rendering of the blazon. A DW of a 'specific' rendering of the blazon, as a COA, needs the source rendering to be free to be free itself. Hope that makes sense. Reventtalk 06:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: @Revent the original coat is in the same site. See it above the alternative coat of arms!Robslpy (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Robslpy: That does not help us... the problem is that the license does not allow for derivative works, and we require that for an image to be on Commons. If the original is under the same license (that does not allow for derivative works) then 'any' rendering of it, even one created by a Commons editor, would be a copyright problem. The copyright law of Paraguay (http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129427 Chapter II) explicitly recognizes the 'right of integrity'... you cannot create a derivative work of such material unless the author has specifically and explicitly allowed you to do so, and COM:L prohibits material with a no-derivative-works prohibition from being uploaded here. Reventtalk 21:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: @Revent and the original coat? Since the site allows you to share? Robslpy (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
It's from the same source, and under the same licensing terms, so it has the same issue. Reventtalk 00:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Designing on the bottle[edit]

Is the designing on this bottle protected by copyright and hence the photo is a derivative? Or, it's in PD? --Mhhossein talk 06:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are talking about the label, per the s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. decision, a photo of the entire bottle is not derivative of the label. Only photos focusing on the label itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg: And is this specific law applicable to all products other than Vodka? --Mhhossein talk 09:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Ruling, not law. Unless you think there is a distinguishing characteristic of different types of bottles which would make the judge's wording not apply, then yes. The wording in the ruling does not say it's specific to vodka bottles. In that type of situation, it's a photograph of the bottle, and the label is incidental (the photo is not being taken because of the label -- it was inherently there.) France had a similar ruling, of a photo with a copyrighted building right in the middle -- but the photo was of a wider scene, so the photo was not focusing on the building in particular, so it was not derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
To explain this a bit differently.... the bottle as a whole is a utilitarian object, and the 'trade dress' of a utilitarian object, even if itself copyrightable, is de minimis in the context of an image of the entire utilitarian object. This is, in fact, a 'derivative work' of the design on the label, but it's an acceptable one IMO. Reventtalk 05:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. --Mhhossein talk 11:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Can Wikimedia upload this photo ? What license ?[edit]

Can i upload this photo. Its part of Panasonic site and would be used for Template "Post focus shots" on description page of photographs. --Mile (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No. We would need a free license to be given on Panasonic's website. If that is not there, then we can't upload it. The logo is above the threshold of originality, so there is a copyright, and only the copyright owners (Panasonic) can license it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg would be different if Pana is out : this one ? --Mile (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No. That is the copyrightable part. Word-only logos are generally below the Commons:threshold of originality, but once you get beyond simple shapes that is where copyrightable expression begins, usually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

My work is regularly lifted and/or plagiarized for use in Wiki[edit]

My maps and work are regularly plagiarized, lifted or copied into Wikipedia and Wikimedia without my permission or knowledge. I cannot stop this. For example, Look at File:Lebanon Ethnic map.png Can someone contact me? Izady@RiskReductionStrategies.org

I have replied by email and sent that one to speedy. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I sent another couple of dozen to speedy, and the remainder Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Великий Антон Васильович. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

File:St Thomas Of Canterbury Roman Catholic Church, Arbroath.jpg[edit]

I was about to delete it, when I noticed that the author, Nick Birse a.k.a NotASpy, is our fellow admin @Nick. The source page clearly states (at the time of writing) that the photo is under CC-BY-NC-2.0, while according to our description page it is under CC-BY-SA-4.0/GFDL-1.2. I believe it is not allowed as per COM:L because IMO it is a case of forbidden Use by Wikimedia only restriction. So Nick has to change the licence on Flickr or the photo must be removed from Commons. Am I right? --jdx Re: 08:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you're very badly mistaken.
The source page clearly states that the image is additionally available under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 and GFDL licences. Did you not read the source page fully ?.
I shouldn't be having to remind a fellow administrator that it's perfectly acceptable to multiple licence images, see w:Wikipedia:Multi-licensing (and also Commons:Multi-licensing. That's how the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licencing works, but it's also additionally possible to choose combinations of Creative Commons licences, on Flickr, I generally use the CC-BY-NC-ND variant of the Creative Commons licence to allow people to re-use my photos, as is, for non commercial purposes, and without having to attribute me specifically.
If I choose to make my work available for commercial purposes (almost always through Commons), then I insist on attribution with Wikimedia Commons being part of the attribution I require. That was something I specifically did to try and benefit the project.
I don't understand the fascination with people trying to delete a file that I have released under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA-4.0 and CC-BY-NC-2.0 or CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0, nor do I understand how an administrator could be so confused as to try and claim it's released under some sort of Wikimedia only licence when it specifically states on Flickr that it's also available under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-4.0 licences.
Any further questions - you know where my talk page is. Nick (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Nick: I admit that I didn't read the page on Flickr carefully enough – I just looked at the icon(s) on the right, as I usually do, and it was clear to me that the photo is licenced under a NC licence, then placing cursor over "Some right reserved" showed link to the CC-BY-NC-2.0 licence. Anyway, the concept of multi-licensing is known to me, but I think that an author should mark his work(s) with the same licence (or combination of licences) in every place he publishes it, if he publishes in more than one place. In other case it causes confusion as in this case. --jdx Re: 12:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I have, as far as is possible, been consistent in explaining what licences the image is available under. Flickr doesn't support GFDL or any CC v4 licences, nor does it support multiple licences. Commons doesn't support the CC-BY-NC-2.0 licence used by Flickr (see {{cc-by-nc-2.0}}) even when a valid less restrictive licence is present, it just nominates the image for deletion without displaying a valid machine readable copyright tag. Nick (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Nick can use whatever license he desires (that Flickr supports) when releasing images on Flickr, and whatever license he desires (that we support) when releasing images here. There is no rule that files have to globally be uniformly licensed... if you get the file from Flickr, you are bound by NC terms... if you get it here, you are bound by your choice of GFDL/CC-BY-SA. Indeed, the file could be marked "All rights reserved" at any external source, as long as the license used here is Commons-compatible, I don't see an issue. Storkk (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he can, but is it really multi-licencing? When an author publishes the same work on 2+ websites under a different licence on each of them, it isn't IMO multi-licencing – he doesn't give (re)users ability to choose a licence, what, I believe, is the essence of multi-licencing. They might even not know that the work is published on some other site under a licence more suitable to their needs. And, of course, it causes confusion. --jdx Re: 14:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The file would have the same licenses here and on Flickr if the CC-BY-NC-2.0 licence template worked and didn't just tag the image for speedy deletion. The file on Flickr has the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-4.0 licences and attribution requirements on Flickr, there's no intentional difference in multi-licencing the file, I want it to be identical on both sites, technical limitations here and on Flickr stop that. Nick (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
He is giving re-users here a free license. What license Flickr users get is not relevant to whether we host the file under the free license. Again, he could have them as "All rights reserved" on Flickr or DeviantArt or a personal website (or a printed magazine, etc. etc.), as long as the file complies with our licensing requirements here, I cannot see a problem. We can only reasonably take care to ensure the freedoms of our reusers, not Flickr users. Storkk (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Belgium - Fifa World Cup Brazil 2014 (14441058161).jpg - personality rights?[edit]

Although technically not a copyright issue, hopefully it's OK to post this here. Per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Brazil (photo was taken in Brazil), this would need explicit consent from the depicted persons (incl. a minor), Belgium has similar restrictions. Also, the depiction of these persons is clearly not incidental. But I am no expert in personality rights - could someone more experienced please have a look at the image and the linked legislation? Is it OK to host this on Commons without explicit consent? (An article with this image is currently under "Featured article" review on en-Wiki) GermanJoe (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: I think you are correct, and you should DR the image. An image of 'the crowd' at such an event at Brazil would be fine (as consent is implied when taking part in a public event for images 'of the event'), but this is clearly an image of the specific people. Consent is needed, and we have no evidence of it. Reventtalk 18:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Thank you for the feedback, I have nominated the image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Belgium - Fifa World Cup Brazil 2014 (14441058161).jpg. Content-wise, it should be possible to replace this image with a wider "crowd" image. GermanJoe (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Pabstdemo.jpg[edit]

The source includes the statement, "This digital image may be used for educational or scholarly purposes without restriction. Commercial and other uses of the item are prohibited without prior written permission from the New-York Historical Society.…" Is there a legal basis for this claim? Vzeebjtf (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems incredibly unlikely. Looks like just another archive claiming copyright to a work because it's in their collection.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Vzeebjtf (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is no way that this image is still copyrighted, since if the author published it during his lifetime, it's pre-1923 and expired, and if not it expired 70 years after his death in 1919. Reventtalk 18:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The only way would be if the photographer assigned any copyright in his negatives to the Library as part of the gift, and if these photos were at the time unpublished, and were first published before 2003. The wording of "digital image" sounds suspiciously like the claim is just about the digitization, and not the original work, which would not have any U.S. basis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The gift to the historical society was from a third party (Ruth Trappan), while his biographical details indicate his 'possessions and photographs' were left to a woman named Mary Granger. It seems likely that the Historical Society never actually owned the subsisting copyright. Reventtalk 19:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yup, agreed (unless transfer of the negatives implied copyright transfer, which varied by court case before 1978). But I think the NYPL puts that boilerplate on just about all their stuff, copyrighted or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Are old photographs of dead people taken by unknown also dead people on public domain?[edit]

Hello. For the Spanish Wikipedia I'm preparing a biographical article about my grandfather, who was an eminent composer and musician from Lara state, Venezuela and died more than 50 years ago (1966). This is not my first contribution to the Spanish Wikipedia and I've already read, learnt, discussed and clarified the details of COI , NPOV and other possible issues related to the fact that I'm writing a relative's biography. However, for this biography, I need to upload to Commons, at least one photograph of him. In our family, we have several photographs that could be scanned and uploaded for this article, all of them taken between 80 and 60 years ago. These pictures were taken by some family members, probably some of them by my father, but it is unknown exactly who took them, since whoever did (including my father) have been dead for a long time. Although I'd assume in this case these picture belong to the public domain, since the author is unknown and deceased since long ago, by reading the FAQ and other help topics in Commons, I haven't found any examples like this explicitly explained. I've discussed this case in the Spanish Wikipedia discussion Cafe, but there still remains uncertainty about how this case should be handled. Any help will be most welcome. --Garai0316 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In case of images taken by your father you as his heir can license and upload them to the commons. For the images taken by other family members you should secure permission from their heirs. If you not sure who took which image, I suppose, you and the heirs of other family members can provide some joint statements to commons:OTRS that you agree to release the images under an appropriate license. Ruslik (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Ruslik. Assuming that I upload one my father's pictures, as a heir, what kind of form should I use to upload that picture? --Garai0316 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
There are various templates depending on what kind of license the heirs agree to, e.g. {{PD-heirs}} or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. By the way: If a picture is in the public domain by now (e.g. the creator is known and died more than 70 years ago) and you are publishing it for the first time (no one published it previously), you may have publication right which, in the EU, works like copyright for 25 years after first publication. So, through first publication, you would become for the next 25 years the rights owner of a public domain image which you previously only physically owned, meaning that you don't have to mark it as public domain - you could alternatively use a free license with attribution requirement, if you wish to do so. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Gestumblindi. I'm sorry, I'm a bit lost. I read the description in the Template:PD-heirs, but I still don't quite understand how I should use it. If I'm my father's only heir and I want to upload a picture taken by him, where in the upload wizard do I state that and where do I use this template? Garai0316 (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It is not in the Upload Wizard because it is rarely used. You can upload files under the Cc-by-sa-4.0 license and then manually change the template. Ruslik (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0, Garai0316: In fact, the Upload Wizard can be used without having first to upload the image under a non-fitting standard license. In the step "Release rights", choose "This file is not my own work", then "Another reason not mentioned above". There will be a box under "The license is described by the following wikitext" where you can enter the fitting template of your choice manually - e.g. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers. Ok, that should do the trick, shouldn't it? So, that means there's actually no need to write an official statement anywhere, such as I hereby state that I XXXX, am the sole heir of YYYY, who is the author of this photograph..., right? Garai0316 (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, in fact, a confirming statement sent via the Commons:OTRS procedure might still be a good idea. The "heirs" template might be questioned, and if there's a statement stored in the OTRS, people will have more trust that what you state is true. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I've followed the procedure using the template {{PD-heirs}} and I could upload one photograph, but then when I tried to upload a second photograph, following the same procedure, I got the following error message:

This action has been automatically identified as harmful (more info). Unconstructive edits will be quickly reverted, and egregious or repeated unconstructive editing will result in your account or IP address being blocked.

and then, when I clicked on more info, I got this:

There was an error in your submission. We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. The content must be freely licensed. Don't copy files illegally (in violation of copyright) from the World Wide Web. If you believe that the file meets our licensing standards: Upload the file again or click "Retry failed uploads"/"Submit modified file description".

, but when I retry, I get the same error message. Anyone knows what may be happening here and how I may solve this? Garai0316 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have no idea, never encountered this message. You can use Special:Upload instead of the Wizard, this will probably work, but you will have to add all information manually. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I also tried with the manual upload and I get the same error message. I guess I'll have to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org asking what the reason may be Garai0316 (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Queen Elizabeth II at Earls Court.jpg and other files from photographers and press given to the U.S. Federal Government[edit]

This file has been uploaded to the The U.S. Army Flickr account. As a work from a non U.S. army officier (John Stillwell/PA Wire PRESS ASSOCIATION) for the U.S. Army, how can be considered this photo?

  • As a work from the photographer under his Copyright?
  • Or as a work for hire/courtesy, now owned by the U.S. Army, therefore in the Public domain?

Pinging @Firebrace as the uploader and possibly interested. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hrm. If it was on the US Army website or DoD images, the contributors generally know they are giving them to the public domain, so those are not that big a deal. Not sure about the Army's Flickr account though. The CC-BY license might be considered valid, I guess -- the image is not marked PD-USGov, after all. And of course, the image appears here with an entirely different credit (Staff Sgt Matthew Coffee). Not sure what to believe... I guess the article linked was written by Mr. Coffee, so maybe they just messed up the photo credit there and the Yahoo version was corrected. The U.S. Army site obviously used the photo with permission, but the question is more if the Press Association was aware that the photo would be licensed that way (usually you are if giving photos to the US Army), or if the Flickr webmaster just neglected to change the license for that one image (which would be an issue). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Wynn family, 1960[edit]

Can I get a review of this photo? It shows the back with proof of publication. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the front side cropped? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I also have concerns that is a wire photo. Often the case when you can't see the whole front. Looks like it has a UPI credit in the caption on the back, which also suggests it was a wire photo (UPI didn't make publicity photos). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Seller replied that the photo is not cropped. --Light show (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Eva Marie Saint, 1954[edit]

Can someone review this photo of her? The notice on the front shows 1954 and a search of any photos of her between 1980 and 1984 came up blank. --Light show (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Any renewal record should be online at www.copyright.gov. As far as I can see, all Columbia Pictures renewals for 1954 works were motion pictures. So that seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. --Light show (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I upload this Canadian Public Domain image?[edit]

I'm not quite sure I understand all the interactions of copywright rules. The image and can be seen here [4] were it is attributed to a Canadian photographer/company circa 1930 and said to be public domain in Canada as the copyright has expired under Canadian Law? MB (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Review needed (sculptures)[edit]

A lot of sculptures and other artworks: Special:ListFiles/Lyudamy. Although uploader may be the author of some of them, I suppose files are incorrectly licensed. --XXN, 14:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Do pre 1977 movie trailers fall under Public domain?[edit]

Hello to everyone. In these days I've noticed a copyright matter that may be interesting to discuss.

We have a category called Category:Film trailers which contains three main sub-categories: Category:Film trailer screenshots‎, Category:Film trailer videos‎, Category:Film trailers in the public domain‎. The latter two are a bit ambiguous, since most of the clips contained in "film trailer videos" are marked as in the public domain as well. Anyhow, the issue seems to be more than an archival matter.

Some frames uploaded in "film trailers screeshots" have been uploaded according to this (outdated? correct?) interpretation of the 1909 Copyright Act. The link is currently broken so I used an archive.org version. Quoting the aforementioned link, "the major argument [against the free interpretation] has been that the scenes from the film itself were protected by the copyright on the complete film. [...] Courts generally tend to back the copyright holder, since the Constitution has granted copyright holders rights to their works in order that they may prosper."

In fact, those scenes were actually covered by copyright when published as part of the movie. Futhermore, if the trailer only contains scenes from the movie, the trailer itself may be always considered a derivate work by a court. Thirdly, are we always sure that there is no copyright note at the end (or the beginning) of the trailer?

That website is pretty clear about the whole problem: "Recently, the Martin Luther King estate lost their lawsuit over the "I Have a Dream" speech when a Georgia court held that the dissemination of his speech to all the newspapers and the news cameras without a copyright notice on the written speeches which he had given to the news media before he made the speech, constituted publication without notice and therefore his speech was in the public domain. This is currently being adjudicated in another court of law which may rule in the opposite direction." [the text is in bold in the original text]. Anyway, this is only a single case.

During the years, many screenshots were deleted by different sysops (eg: 1, 2, 3, 4...), but many others are still there.

So, what should we consider as the most cautious interpretation here on Commons? My opinion is that the copyright status of those screenshots is sometime hard to be identified, it's in general still unclear and may change from a court statement to another (as seems to have happened in the past). Thus, uploading them in( Commons with a public domain tag (free commercial use, etc.) may be hazardous. --Lucas (msg) 04:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lucas: If you have to ask on VPC, the situation is obviously not blatant enough to tag them for speedy deletion, so I have undone the 28 that were not yet deleted. If you believe they need deletion, please use a regular DR. Storkk (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Yes, of course, thanks and please forgive my slowness. I have been sysop on it.wiki since the age of dinosaurs and used to revert any kind of action, it's not always easy to change this "mindset". :-)) Clearly, I noticed the issue after those requests (better said: because of them and because some of the older ones were accepted with no doubts). Due to the fact that I manage copyright matters every day, some doubts about the management of this particular field here on Commons have arisen in me. After this message, I planned to suspend the remaining deletion requests during this morning, so thank you very much for your faster and prompt action. :-) Any opinion about the general issue? --Lucas (msg) 08:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I am not an expert, but my understanding is that film trailers are not necessarily derivative of the film itself, and (because?) they were often/always published before the film meaning they required a copyright notice in the US pre-1977. I have no opinion on creativeclearance.com's expertise, but do note that spreading FUD (if that is what it is, I haven't read the whole link) would appear to be in their financial interest. Storkk (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Trailers of non-US films may not belong in Commons due to URAA. To determine public domain status, a trailer of a non-US film must be free in both the home country and the US. Trailers of non-US films published before 1923 may be free to use in the US, but determine their statuses in home countries. I'm saying this in general. Specific cases may vary. --George Ho (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: (thanks ;) Well, in this case the article is actually the opposite of FUD, the general tone is sort of a "we think [and want to think for economical reasons] that trailers usually falls under PD, but onestly this is far from being certain". :-)
@George Ho: I do agree with everything you say. But I am talking about pre-1977/post-1922 US trailers as well. To me the points are: 1. many scenses in the trailers were actually covered by copyright when published as part of the movie, so, can we publish them under PD? I don't think so, since there is no conclusive case law about this. 2. If the trailer only contains scenes from the movie (no new scenes), the trailer itself may be considered a derivate work by a court even without a copyright note. 3. Are we always sure that there is no copyright note at the end (or the beginning) of the trailer? Nope...
Many sysops deleted various screenshots of pre-1977 US trailers in the past, maybe it's the time to esablish a common guideline on this.
As you correcly say, "specific cases may vary", but I would say more: each case vary, and apparently there is no univocal case law. That's why I think that, generally speaking, keeping screenshots (and even full trailers) of pre-1977/post-1922 on Commons is hazardous. After all there are pending lawsuits about this very issue. --Lucas (msg) 13:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Which pending lawsuits? Anyways... if there is material in trailers not present in the film, that is probably OK. http://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch10.html states basically that. For the rest, it can come down to lots of small details -- when (and if) was the trailer actually published, vs. when was the film itself published, etc. If the trailer was published first, that may have injected that material in the public domain, and the movie would not have been able to reclaim it. But the definition of publication could be very strange -- usually it was when films were sent to distributors and outside the control of the original proprietors. There was a such a thing as "limited publication" though which did not result in lost copyrights, which was publication to a limited set of people for a limited purpose with no right of further distribution. Often, trailers were distributed similarly to the films and would probably have the same publication situation, but not necessarily -- if a trailer was only exhibited in showings controlled by the proprietors, that would not be general publication. And if the trailer contains songs, or is itself derivative of a previous work like a novel, it could still be a problem even if it was publication without notice (as the derivative rights would still hold). Another case which dives into these areas (though with non-trailer publicity materia) was Warner Bros. vs Avela, which decided that the pre-film publicity material was generally published, and lost its copyright. However, using that material in conjunction with other elements could create a derivative work of the still-copyrighted character copyright which was created by the film itself (the publicity material was not enough to establish a character copyright), so many of the uses in that case were found infringing. But that does suggest that a trailer, if deemed published before the film without notice, might be OK. The MLK case you refer to above was indeed overturned, as broadcast is not publication, and the distribution of copies to the news agencies was deemed to be "limited publication" and therefore did not require a notice. The copyright in trailers can then get into complicated situations -- when was the trailer actually published vs. when was the film actually published (and the film may have been registered before publication, which would mean any trailer would then be deemed coming after the film). And on the other hand, copyright notices were required on all copies -- even if earlier copies had a notice, if notices cease on later copies, copyright was still lost. In the case of trailers though, a later-published trailer is more likely to be derivative of the character copyrights from a still-copyrighted movie, and thus not free to distribute. Still frames from trailers can also be a bit different, as there is little to no chance of being derivative of a song or literary work. So, stills from trailers which are not also scenes from the movie are on the safest ground. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Carl, you have precisely and punctually described the whole context. It's exactly what I wanted to write (your command of English saved me from having to write such an excellent description). This will be very helpful for those who want to deepen the matter like we did. My point is: considering this context, it seems a bit risky to keep frames and full trailers only because they are from "pre-1977 era". Looking at the aforementioned categories, many of those files seem to be uploded just because of this (pretty weak) chronological reason. Some of them were deleted, some of them are there. Should we check them all after the uploading? I'd rather think it may be easier and more effective to define a policy about trailer uploading. How would you (we all) write a template or tag to help users and sysop? Thanks. --Lucas (msg) 15:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
A tag would be difficult -- U.S. law is pretty clear, that if something was published without a copyright notice, it fell into the public domain. It should not matter if a movie was published later, which contained some of the (now public domain) scenes as the trailer. The primary difficulty is establishing "publication" for the trailer per U.S. law, so (outside of derivative work situations) it comes down to a community decision on the likelihood of that situation. Many of them probably did enter the public domain. Obviously, the uploaded works are not there solely based on date -- they are there because they are from before 1978 and also do not have a notice. The publication is being presumed at the moment. So, the question is more that does any doubt rise to the level of "significant doubt" per COM:PRP, or were enough of them in fact "published" such that it is more of a theoretical doubt, which we would not delete over -- instead, needing particular evidence for a specific trailer (such as a movie registration which predated a specific trailer, or evidence that the trailer was not published, etc.). For stills, I definitely think we would at least need to show they were also part of the movie -- trailer-only stills should usually be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the following were tagged by Lucas as copyvios at the same time and I was not fast enough to undo them before they were deleted. They should probably live and die with the others depending on the outcome of this discussion: File:VicKayKissHuckstersTrailer1947.JPG, File:Hucksters1947TrailerChoice2.JPG, File:Hucksters1947TrailerChoice1.JPG, File:BonnieClyde67TrailerSitBumper.JPG, File:BonnieClyde67TrailerWBCredit.JPG, File:BonnieClyde67TrailerWilder.JPG, File:BonnieClyde67Trailer05.jpg, File:AdolpheMenjouHuckstersTrailer1947.JPG, File:ClarkAvaCuddleHuckstersTrailer.JPG, File:AvaGardnerAsJeanHuckstersTrailer1947.JPG, File:4inClubCarHuckstersTrailer1947.JPG, File:DeborahKerrHuckstersTrailer1947.JPG, File:GardnerGableHuckstersTrailer1947.JPG, File:EdwardArnoldHuckstersTrailer1947.JPG, File:HareAndVicHuckstersTrailer1947.JPG, File:GreenstreetAsEvansHuckstersTrailer1947.JPG. Ping deleting admin. Storkk (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Promo single from France[edit]

The promo single of David Bowie's "Station to Station" was published to radio stations in France. What is the copyright status of the vinyl label in France? --George Ho (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

New law in Argentina. all goverment work on free?[edit]

Hi! Last month a new Law for access to public information for the national goverment of Argentina was approved in Congress. The 1st article proclaim "the information should be accessible on open electronic formats, which facilitate it proccessing by automatic methods, allowing to be reused or redistribution by third parties.", 2nd article "(...)its includes the possibility to search, access, request, receive, copy, analyze, reprocess, reuse and freely redistribute information (...)" complete law text in spanish. And there is a list of organism and agencies obligated to it. Basically everything complies with free work. So should be okey to have a PD-ARGov, like the PD-USGov? --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

On the face of it, that looks like something more of a freedom of information law than anything specifically relating to copyright. Freedom of information laws typically apply to all public records (regardless of author), whereas for something like PD-USGov we would need a law which specifically mentions copyright (or author's rights) and disclaims that right for works authored by the government. Does that law mention copyright anywhere? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Not, it doesn't mention it, but during the discussion of it, they considered photos, maps (CAD), etc made by the goverment to fall into this free usage. In the Buenos Aires City, the new freedom of information law (i contributed in it) includes explicitly "photos" for this intention. On the exceptions it says "d) Información que comprometa los derechos o intereses legítimos de un tercero obtenida en carácter confidencial", whichs means "Information that compromises the legitimate rights or interests of a third party obtained on a confidential basis". Here, i can legally use everything that come into a public bidding, that means, maps, photos, diagrams, etc. (which is my intention whit this query). Cheers! --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
These are fairly standard parts of freedom of information laws (all the types of records), though the usage part does go a ways beyond, and is quite cool. But unless it explicitly disclaims all of the rights represented by copyright (adaptations etc.), I'm guessing folks here will not consider it equivalent to a free license. There is definitely some copyright overlap in all of this (as with most freedom of information laws) but if it truly completely pre-empted copyright, you'd think that would be mentioned somewhere. The main question is there any usage of these works which could still be a copyright violation? It is possible that courts could rule it effectively bars copyright (similar to the rulings in Florida), but... we may prefer to actually have such a ruling before assuming it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Uploading image of 1992 university student newspaper article, not available on internet[edit]

Hello, I'd like to use scanned images for a 1992 student newspaper article. It is from Univ Wisconsin Whitewater newspaper, "The Royal Purple." Neither the university not the student paper have this media available on the internet. Is it considered copyrighted? Is there a work around? Such as creating a text transcription? Uploading the scanned images on another photo db site and linking to it? Best to get permission from the current student staff to use here? BTW, I live more than 100 miles from UWW, my alma mater and don't know any current students FWIW. I did just email for permission. Any assistance is appreciated. Eschermerhorn (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)eschermerhorn

It is copyrighted -- everything these days is automatically copyrighted for many decades (in the U.S., it would be copyrighted for 95 years from publication -- unless a named author, in which case it would be their entire lifetime plus 70 more years). So... for Commons, we would need a license from the copyright owner. There are no workarounds here. If something qualifies under en-wiki's fair use guidelines, it could be uploaded there as fair use. If you think you are within your rights to publish the material on a website elsewhere, you may be able to link to it as an external link from an article, though other editors would need to agree it was relevant. If uploading to a website elsewhere is a copyright violation, it is a bad idea to link to it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Logo of Gee Records[edit]

Is the logo of Gee Records copyrightable? --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Whm, maybe abone the TOO, but the album (and by extension the artwork in the disc) has been created before 1977 without a copyright notice. It can be uploaded and tagged with {{PD-US-No notice}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • For the U.S., that is below the TOO. It would not necessarily be PD-US-no_notice -- a copyright notice on the sleeve would also cover it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Does de minmis apply here?[edit]

I'm not sure if here we can apply De minimis. --Mhhossein talk 11:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Clearly (and the right is cropping rather than nominating for deletion). --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Probably incidental, but the crop does not hurt to be safer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Sport clubs of Mexico as "recognized organizations" (again)[edit]

Considering that, at previous discussion (in spanish), there is no concensus about the sport clubs as "recognized organizations", I start this discussion again.

The Artículo 14. paragraph VII. f the Ley Deferal de Derecho de Autor says:

Artículo 14.- No son objeto de la protección como derecho de autor a que se refiere esta Ley:

VII. Las reproducciones o imitaciones, sin autorización, de escudos, banderas o emblemas de
cualquier país, estado, municipio o división política equivalente, ni las denominaciones, siglas,
símbolos o emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales,
o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente, así como la designación verbal de los
mismos;

Notice that the "recognized organizations" term is mentioned there, but it does not enumerate what are considered "recognized organizations" (that is not the scope of that specific law, but others). As I know, the following are considered as "recognized organizations":

  • Gubernamental organizations (federal, municipal, etc)
  • NGOs (national or internationals)
  • Educational centers (scools, universities, etc)
  • Sport clubs (as public organizations)

As I'm tried to find concensus, I have search for information about the status of the sport clubs of Mexico but unsuccessful. So, if there is any user from Mexico, please take the time to reseach this, it will be very helpful. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

From the discussion you linked, it appears to me that Sport clubs aren't a "recognized organization". It was written: Las empresas y compañías no son, para efectos del artículo 14 fracción VII, "organizaciones reconocidas oficialmente" ya que no poseen tal "reconocimiento". A football club is "an empresa", i.e. a company or a firm. --Ruthven (msg) 21:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't speak Spanish and I am not a lawyer, especially not a Mexican one. So take everything I say on this matter with not only a grain of salt, but with a salt shaker of it. But in my layman's reading of the words of the law, the part about "international government, non-government, and other officially recognized organizations" refers to international heavy-hitting organizations, not regional sports clubs. Maybe the national football league, maybe the Olympic Committee. But as long as we do not get confirmation from someone knowledgeable which organizations are meant by that sentence, we can not assume anything and have to err on the side of the PRP. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)