Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓
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 may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note
  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  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.
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page
Commons discussion pages (index)

  • Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Licence tag for documents in respect of which UK Crown copyright has expired[edit]

What licence tag should I use for documents in respect of which UK Crown copyright has expired? {{PD-UKGov}} is only for images, so I ended up using {{PD-because}} for "File:Letters Patent Establishing the Court of Judicature at Prince of Wales' Island, Singapore, and Malacca, in the East-Indies (27 November 1826; published February 1827).pdf". Is there a more appropriate tag? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-UKGov}} is the correct tag. Numbered point 1 is just for photographs since they had a special term, but points 2 and 3 cover any other types of work. I imagine point 2 is the one which applies here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, but the tag says "This artistic work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain." (Emphasis added.) Also, from what I was able to ascertain (hence my use of {{PD-because}}), the position concerning Crown copyright under section 18 of the Copyright Act 1911 was that government works are copyrighted for 50 years from the date of publication. None of the three situations mentioned in {{PD-UKGov}} mentions this. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The word "artistic" seems to be misplaced and should probably be removed. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I just went to correct the template, more precisely to align with the wording of the act, by removing the word "artistic" but I am locked out of editing it. Annoying. -- (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
According to the discussion at "Template talk:PD-UKGov#Non-artistic works", the tag is only accurate for artistic works and not for literary works, which is why the wording was changed back in 2008. If this is correct, we really need to have a separate licence tag for literary works. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The section of the act referenced uses the term "work", not "artistic work". The discussion you refer to seems to have the opinion of just one person rather than a consensus. For the avoidance of doubt it states:
18 - Provisions as to Government publications
Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work.
-- (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a flowchart on page 14 of this PDF. There is a difference for an artistic work -- the term is 50 years from creation in that case. Photographs are slightly different; it is date of creation if before 1957 and date of publication if created later. So... for photographs created before 1957, plus artistic works other than engravings, the term is 50 years from creation. For engravings plus all kinds of non-artistic works, it looks like it is 50 years from publication. So in looking closer, it is point #2 which applies to all other types of works; point #1 is just for photographs, and point #3 is for non-engraving and non-photograph artistic works. I don't think we need another tag, but I think we should remove "artistic" from the top of the tag and only keep it on point #3. The numbered points all look correct to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice summary. Perhaps an admin can suggest or go ahead with improving the licence template, as only an admin can edit it? Thanks -- (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Fæ: There is an important thing in the British copyright law which you might have overlooked. Search for the words "Duration of copyright in existing works" at [1]. Some pre-existing works are subject to the term given in the copyright law from 1956. According to Article 10 of the w:Copyright Duration Directive, Britain is supposed to use whichever is longer of the old British term and the common EU term. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not see the relevance for Crown Copyright works. The duration of copyright is defined as the duration of Crown Copyright, nothing more. In this way, the rest of European law can be put aside as the Crown has her rights protected by UK law. -- (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Correct, the EU copyright directives had no effect on Crown Copyright duration since that is effectively a copyright owner placing them in the public domain. There is a duration situation with unpublished works and the special term they were given in 1989, but I don't think it will be relevant for us until 2039 or 2040. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Does point 2 in {{PD-UKGov}} ("It was commercially published prior to 1965") correctly capture the situation mentioned in the useful UK National Archives chart mentioned by Carl? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It actually should just be "published", not "commercially published", as the latter is for works first published after August 1, 1989 (the effective date of the 1988 Copyright Act which altered some of the terms; those changes won't have any real effect on us for a while though). But yes, 50 years from publication is the general Crown Copyright term for works which are not artistic works, engravings, nor photographs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. How do we go about proposing changes to the wording of the licence tag? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright holder[edit]

Mr. Listener (from «Historical Company») asked Mr. Speaker to tell about his past life, and recorded this speech with a voice recorder. Who owns the copyright — Mr. Speaker or «Historical Company»? Who has to give a permission? Thanks. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It depends. The easiest way to explain is to quote the US Copyright Office (the Copyright Compendium)...
“There are two types of sound recording authorship:
* Authorship in the performance(s); and
* Authorship in the production of the sound recording.
Generally, both the performer and the producer of a sound recording of a musical performance or spoken word performance contribute copyrightable authorship to the sound recording. In some cases, however, the main or sole contribution may be production authorship (as in a recording of bird songs, where there is no human performance) or the main contribution may be performance authorship (as in a recorded performance where the only production involved is to push the “record” button).”

In your given example, the speaker has a copyright in the 'words', and the listener 'might' have a seperate copyright in the recording itself, but it would be for actual 'production work', not for just asking the question and pushing the button. Revent (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As extemporaneous, non-fixed speech, I'm not so sure the person has a copyright in the "words". In some countries they might. The recording is a separate copyright. I'm not sure there is much else needed to get a sound recording copyright other than pressing the record button, though in some cases they may need the performer's permission to make the recording in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Second try writing a response, I misunderstood you at first, because what I said was unclear.... I did not mean a claim in the 'text' of what they were saying (if they did have such a claim, it would be a completely different issue, of a literary work) but in the spoken words, the 'performance' of telling the story, that performance becoming fixed when recorded. That's separate from any possible 'production' copyright, though my read is that the actual requirement for a production copyright is extremely low... anything more than acting as a remote control device for the start and stop buttons would probably qualify. Revent (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Performer's rights are separate from copyright, at least so far... not all countries have them. Also, whether someone being interviewed would count as a "performer" would probably also depend on country-by-country laws. There is a Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, not yet in force (ratified by five countries) which gives the definition: "performers" are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As is common in similar discussions, I have found, the concept of co-authorship is often neglected, it is assumed that there is a single author and thus a single owner. With COM:Own work/Bystander selfie (a draft), it is arguable that the person who held the camera could have author rights, and this has often been stated on Commons, as if it were an inflexible rule (it is not, there are circumstances where the ordinary assumption fails, and a bystander selfie, where the bystander does not retain the latent image and could not publish it if he or she wanted to, is a very special -- though common -- case), however, the subject clearly is a kind of author; the person telling their own story is definitely participating in creation, and centrally, not just trivially. The person recording the speech, do they have rights? That is likely, and the circumstances described above may indicate permission for release. If they are co-authors, under U.S. law, either one may release the material, consultation with the other is not needed. However, as with a photo of a living subject here, whether or not the subject owns copyright, we may want indication of permission. This, I'm sure, has precedent here, which should be consulted. If the speaker is notable, the speaker's permission may not be needed, just as with photos.
  • In the example above, the one recording might be an author preparing a book, and would clearly have permission to quote (unless there was some other agreement). While a definitive universal answer may not be possible, absent better specification of the actual conditions, Commons is not for legal advice, we make decisions here on inclusion, based on proper license information, which does not always need to know who owns something, but rather whether or not the uploader has the right to release under our license, or permission has been shown elsewhere. The general answer here would be, my opinion, that the one recording or the speaker, either one, could release the recording. They do not both need to consent. Any dispute over that would be between them, and would not impact the rights of a re-user, unless there were fraud here, which is something we cannot completely avoid. (I.e, say the recording were made without permission, the speaker is not notable, and the uploader has lied.) --Abd (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    What does not being able to publish if they wanted to have to do with anything? It's established law that if you send a letter to someone, even if you don't retain a copy of that letter, you still retain the copyright. Same thing with selling a painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Co-authorship is a different concept than this. With say a recording of a song, there can be separate copyrights -- the recording itself, the musical composition, and the lyrics. They have nothing at all to do with each other; there could be three separate copyright owners (*not* co-authors). You probably need permission of all three to distribute (and the person doing the recording most probably also needs the permission of the performers to be a legal recording, depending on performer's rights -- for phonograms in particular those rights are pretty universal but once beyond that they get spottier). Co-authorship is where two or more people contribute to the same copyrightable work. Even in a book, there can be multiple copyrights -- the text, each illustration, and the arrangement of all of it. If someone writes the text and another chooses and arranges the illustrations, that is not co-authorship -- those are separate works. If two people write the text, editing it between themselves, then the text is co-authored. As for the photo bystander, for co-authorship, you are arguing that two people had input into the artistic expression in the photograph (maybe one chooses the angle, another the framing, etc.) The fact that one cannot publish may not matter. There are always situations which can blur the lines or present difficult questions for the law as written, but if the bystander was solely responsible for the expression and therefore fully owned the copyright, a judge would have to find a way within the law as written to give the other person enough rights to use the photo as desired. The law is now very clear that any transfer of copyright must be written, so that cannot be the case (before 1978, some situations were ruled implied transfer of copyright but it now must be explicit so judges no longer have that latitude). They could rule that the first person has much wider fair-use rights than normal, or there was at least an implied license for use in most situations. They could try for a work-for-hire though the written law now has very specific criteria which might be difficult to get around. If there was co-authorship, then both people have rights. But each situation could be very different. In the situation for this section however, there is no co-authorship -- probably just the one copyright of the recording, which Historical Company probably owns as a work for hire. If Mr. Speaker wrote down his speech before giving it, then there is also a copyright in that text. If local law grants copyright to all speech even if unfixed and extemporaneous, then that copyright can exist as well, and both copyrights would need to be licensed. (There can be some different details given a particular law may differ -- e.g. whether the copyright owner of a composition has the right to restrict distribution of a recording once permission to make the recording itself was given. If I recall I'm not sure that India gave that right, in which case permission from Historical Company might be enough, but the U.S. is probably different.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Carl. We have a strong tendency to do what courts do not usually do, which is to attempt to derive universal principles which we then apply to the case before us, as if there were some determining truth behind decisions. Real courts do not decide the hypothetical. They decide specific cases, following statutory and common law, and the latter includes an understanding of the intentions of the parties. Being human, courts also opine, that's called "dicta," and it can be a clue as to how they will decide in a different situation.
There is no doubt that a license is airtight if all the possible co-authors and human subjects have agreed in writing. From my reading, law on co-authorship varies. In the U.S., however, any co-author has the right to license. This does not deprive other co-authors of "rights," but it provides an avenue for recourse. If a co-author's release injures another co-author, the allegedly injured co-author has the right to compensation *from the releasing co-author,* and may sue. The plaintiff may not recover damages from a good-faith user of the material, under license from the other co-author.
So our situation on Commons becomes much simpler than attempting to determine who other possible co-authors are. I'm not going to get into international complications. Commons may host if such hosting is allowed in the U.S. What we would want to determine is whether or not the work is released by a co-author, someone who would have a prima-facie claim of co-authorship.
If the circumstances described in the question here were shown to exist, Speaker has, at least, co-authorship rights. I raised the Bystander selfie issue because it has been said, on Commons, that the bystander, the photographer, must be the copyright owner, excluding the subject, and this has also applied to videos, where the subject does not just sit there, and would presumably apply to videos with sound recording. Here, there is more involvement by the Listener. Listener interviews Speaker. This is not merely a button push. The recording was created by an interaction between Listener and Speaker. Without the Listener, Speaker would not have spoken. The Speaker did not ask a bystander to record, handing him a sound recorder, saying, "Please hold this where it will pick up my words, and press Record when I say I'm ready." On the face of it, both have copyright *on the recording*, as co-authors, and I find that clear. As co-authors, in the U.S., each has the right to release, so either one could provide permission and we do not need to demand that other(s) be tracked down.
With a bystander selfie, the subject is clear, and the subject is (generally) the uploader, so we have no complicated issues to decide. The subject arranged the photo, provided the camera, and solicited a bystander to hold it, frame it, and press the button. (Those two are separable, i.e, a camera could be on a tripod and a bystander is asked to push the button on a signal, or self-timers have been used with a bystander holding the camera and framing. And we don't need to know!) A bystander might be able to claim co-authorship, under some (rare) conditions, but claiming sole authorship would be impossible. Therefore the subject has the right to release, and is also the only person who has the power to publish and release the image. In a bystander selfie, the subject is not passive, a mere object being photographed by a photographer acting on his own initiative. The intention of ownership is clear with a bystander selfie, and it is as a WMF lawyer concluded, in a WMF legal opinion, which has not been modified or even questioned there.
With the interview recording, which is what is described, the Listener is not passive, either, and created the occasion for the recording, provided the equipment, and operated it. It is clear, then, that absent evidence to the contrary, the Listener has, under U.S. law, the right to release. Under some circumstances, the Speaker might not even have the right to prevent release (i.e., notable subject, newsworthy conversation, and there are prominent cases). If there was an expectation of privacy, yes. Release could be blocked. However, the circumstances described indicate a clear permission by the Speaker. Authors routinely record interviews. May they release the interview? The very purpose of the recording is so that they may be accurate in their writing. I.e., by allowing the recording, the subject has consented to release, unless otherwise specified. (Which sometimes happens. "This is off the record, you may record this for your own use, but not release it.")
As Carl made clear, there may be multiple copyrights. However, with the case here, there is no other "work" as defined in copyright law, reduced to tangible form, than the recording. Speaker and Listener both participated in the creation of that, as the situation was described, and thus are co-authors of it. That the words might also be copyrightable (separately) does not change that. This is consistent with all case law I've read that is related. The salient case is Brod v. General Publishing Group, Inc. --Abd (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The Speaker had nothing to do with the creation of the recording and has no copyright interest in it. There is no co-authorship here. Their only possible rights are if copyright law gives protection to a speech (a separate copyright), and if they are somehow classified as a performer in the circumstance (and have performer's rights). Also potentially privacy rights, but that does not sound likely. This has no common ground at all with a bystander taking a photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Nothing to do" is hyperbole. (Bystander selfies were mentioned for contrast.) The speaker invented the words and arranged them and spoke them in a certain manner. This is not merely a "performance" of a work. It is a work.
However, we do not need to decide if Speaker is co-author, assuming that the one uploading here is Listener, i.e, the producer of the recording. I agree with the conclusion that, as the matter is described, Listener is at least a co-author, and thus may release the recording here (or may otherwise give permission) and we are not a copyright court, we do not need to decide the rest. Thanks, Carl. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
In the U.S., works need to be fixed in a medium to be copyrightable. Extemporaneous speech is not copyrightable, so there is no "work" involved with the speech in the case described, unless they were delivering prepared remarks (where the speech was written down beforehand). There are some countries which protect all speeches, but it's not clear that a Q&A session or any normal conversation qualifies. That will depend on the law of the country in question. The Listener/Historical Company would be the sole copyright owner of the recording. If three people in the audience were recording, then there would be three separate recording copyrights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This is actually moot here, unless the Speaker were releasing the recording. Yes, it could get complicated. If I tell the story of my life, I have prepared for it my whole life. But that is not copyrightable in itself, there is no doubt. My actual expression may involve much care and work, and be creative. If I intentionally create a recording by allowing Listener to make one, that fixes my creation in a physical form. I am reasonably confident that in the U.S., I could claim copyright, as co-author, at least.
However, again, Carl, your comments lead to the same conclusion for us: Listener may release. It is not our business to advise people on copyright law. (And we might suggest, if it matters, get a formal release from the other possible co-author or privacy-protected person! That is what professionals often do, I've been videotaped on the street for the local news, giving my opinion, and I was given a release to sign.) There may or may not be co-authorship rights. In order to consider this more deeply, much more would need to be known. We don't need to do that! Listener has the right to release the recording, absent unstated conditions or provisions of local law. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I rather disagree with some of what has been stated above and here is why, though I'm going to restrict this to US copyright law. Regarding the speaker, a "literary work" is defined as a work expressed in words, "regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as (...) phonorecords, film, tapes, in which they are embodied." A story is a literary work, once it has been fixed in a physical form, even if that form is an audio recording, and it's creator (the speaker, in this case) holds sole copyright in it. To "perform" a work is defined as specifically including reciting it.. it is possible to perform a literary work, and when the speaker tells the story they have done so, so they hold a sole copyright in the performance. As far as the listener (the person making the recording) they hold no copyright in the 'raw audio' of the recording.... effort such as setting up the situation and asking the question is not relevant, there must be a 'definable aspect of the work itself' that is directly attributable to a person for them to be the author. Any production work on the recording, however, grants the listener a 'production copyright' in their modifications, and they own the sole copyright in that work (or their company, probably, in the case stated). In the hypothetical case given, there are no questions of co-authorship, merely multiple copyrights.
I (strongly) think that merely being extemporaneous matters not at all. My words that I am typing here are extemporaneous, I'm just typing what I want to say without any later revision, and I don't think anyone would claim that I do not hold a copyright in them.
That being said, in the hypothetical case given, while the storyteller holds a copyright in the 'literary work' and in the 'performance', it would seem fairly obvious that by giving the performance 'on request' in such a situation they were licensing those copyrights to the listener, and that the listener would them be free to release the material 'in that form'. Something like a transcript, or a re-performance of the work by a different person, would require permission from the speaker. As mentioned, though, this is all about a hypothetical case; in a real situation there would probably be signed releases involved. Revent (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

CC BY 3.0 vs CC BY 4.0[edit]

What is the practical difference between Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) and CC Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)? Editor abcdef (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, that's an interesting topic covered in the PDF or the Wiki-pages linked on Open content guide. There are subtle differences, and at the end of the day it's your decision. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
See for a full 'authoritative' table of the differences between versions. Most of the differences are not a big deal, really, such as allowing 30 days for a reuser to correct failure to comply after being notified, and preventing someone from CC-licensing material but then 'protecting' it with some kind of technological measure. 4.0 does explicitly require you to provide the URI of the source as part of the attribution, and removes a requirement to maintain the exact 'title' of the licensed work (but most of the images on Commons don't have a formal title). Under 4.0, you also explicitly must indicate if you have modified the work. Revent (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issues regarding two product photos[edit]

These photos were uploaded by others and the photos themselves are freely licensed, but the copyright situation as far as the depicted product packaging (see COM:PACKAGING) seems unclear.

  • File:Dg milk containers.jpg - The lettering on the bottle on the left seems unlikely to be copyrighted, but some of the design on the carton on the right might be (any idea as to how old the carton design is?)
  • File:Ipodclassic120gb.jpg - The design on the top of the box might be de minimis; this seems doubtful, given that the box seems to be prominently depicted and that the design covers a lot of the box top. (There is also the question as to whether the software display on the iPod is de minimis, given that that the display is from proprietary software.)

--Gazebo (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing interesting on the iPod photo, plain text menus indicating the focus item with reverse video is vintage 1990 curses. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The top of the iPod box might not be de minimis in my opinion. I would be much more comfortable if that was cropped out/blurred, sue to the copyrightable image on top of the box. The text on the side is not copyrightable, but the "iPod-image" is. But it is a judgement call, and my standars for de minimis is very low, compared to others. Josve05a (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Solar eclipse picture File:SE2015Mar20T.gif[edit]


How can this be 'public domain' when it says on the picture itself that it's copyrighted?

(I came here after seeing it on the wikipedia article about the recent eclipse, which was on the main page)

The history of this is, to use the technical term, weird. That image was uploaded in 2009, giving a NASA web page as source. The image, if it was ever on that NASA page, isn't on it now. This image is the only contribution here of the uploader, and it shows the March 20, 2015 eclipse. So, of course, it has been widely used, recently. Because of wide use, we should be careful, but the license information is clearly incorrect. As matters stand, there is no evidence that this is a NASA work. On the face, it's (c) 2000 by A.T. Sinclair. We should research this. A DR should be put on the file. I've never done a DR, and don't have time at the moment to figure it all out, so someone else can do that. Because of wide usage, immediate deletion would be disruptive cross-wiki. --Abd (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There are other similar images, such as File:SE1991Jan15A.gif. This file was uploaded to Wikipedia, where it is not impossible fair use could have been claimed. Then it was transferred by bot to Commons, where it may be deleted. There are thousands upon thousands of cases like this. Ordinarily the original uploader, who is using the file in a study, would be notified of a deletion on Not from commons. --Abd (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It is still on the NASA site, at the stated source. The second column has the link to the animated GIFs. is the direct URL. The watermarking also has in there, but does have the copyright notice. Definitely a little odd. It's possible a source image was copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Found it, thanks. What it looks like is someone wrote a tool, and NASA used it. So we need to find the tool or information about it. It could be that images from the tool are usable here. Or not. --Abd (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, source information, first find: [2]. Besides having alternate animations (the one shown is actually much nicer), this page has
There are several authoritative sources of detailed eclipse information on the Web, including Fred Espenak's NASA Goddard site and Eclipses Online from the UK's HM Nautical Almanac Office. As a point of comparison, both sites link to animations by Andrew Sinclair, former head of HMNAO.
This is the HMNAO web site on eclipses: ... "Crown copyright" on the site. Our gif is on It credits "Dr. Andrew Sinclair", but the image has no copyright in it. The page, though, is "Crown copyright." That copyright would not be expired, and it might limit use, I'll leave this to experts. It's not impossible that permission could be obtained.
One more point before I put this down. What if the work is a joint work? I.e., the HMNAO has: "In conjunction with the US Naval Observatory, we have provided a canon of eclipses based on software used in the production of The Astronomical Almanac." If it is a joint work with a U.S. government agency, it might have joint ownership, and then either joint owner may be able to release the images, under U.S. law, as NASA has (without citing the Crown copyright, but citing the author of the software's name, and leaving that copyright notice in place.) --Abd (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah. The original source is here. Dr Andrew T Sinclair was the former head of the w:HM Nautical Almanac Office, which is basically the source of the images. They may be Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Different versions of CC-BY-SA[edit]

Hello, I'd like upload photos that I created to Flickr and Commons under CC-BY-SA. However, Flickr only makes it possible to choose version 2.0, though I'd prefer the most recent one, 4.0. Is it possible to dual-license them under any license from 2.0 to 4.0 or similar? Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are allowed to relicense and dual-license images you own as you want. Just bare in mind that if it once was licensed under 2.0 and you relicense it as 4.0 here, people are still allowed to use it under the terms of 2.0 and/or 4.0 as they please. Even if you do not mention the 2.0 license here, or remove it from Flickr Josve05a (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If the image is licensed on Flickr under 2.0, if you use a different license here (even a later version of the CC license) you should really either note in the image description on Flickr that it's also under 4.0, or submit a verification to OTRS (since your wiki account is not 'provably' the same as the Flickr account, and a 'third party' can't relicense a work under a newer version, they can only do so for an adaptation). Other than that, it's perfectly fine to offer it under different licenses different places, or multiple licenses here. Revent (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyrights on unfinished buildings in Romania[edit]

I know that buildings in Romania are considered copyrighted and there is no FOP, but what about unfinished buildings like the one I photographed at ? This has been sitting unfinished over a quarter of a century, but no one ever deliberately designed it to look like this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Are Creative Commons icons in public domain?[edit]

Category:SVG Creative Commons icons have been licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses, however, Template:PD-ineligible, logos that only consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text are ineligible for copyright. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

See It has been discussed a lot; but no conclusion so far. FWIW, CC doesn't licensed their icons with a free license. Jee 11:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Most of these would be {{PD-textlogo}}. I changed the license for the most obvious cases. I think File:By.svg and File:CC-devnations white.svg are also PD-textlogo. Agreed? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If there is a legitimate free license on a file, it's a bad idea to ever remove it, in case icons are above the threshold of originality in some country somewhere. Using only PD-ineligible opens up a lot of questions for re-use, even if accurate in many/most countries. So add PD-ineligible if you like, but I would not remove any free license unless we know it's bogus (the uploader didn't own rights in the first place, etc.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I an understand that for borderline cases, but for File:Cc-by.svg, I don't see how there would be anything other than PD, even in UK. And I think we need to be more consistent with licenses and copyright. If we agree to host simple logos copied from random websites under PD-textlogo, I don't see how we could accept a claim of copyright for the same type of logos from our own contributors. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Does the same PD principle apply to svg-icons as png-icons? I would say that the motif might be simple, yes, however the code behind an svg might be above TOO and not PD... Josve05a (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I can see adding PD-ineligible to a license, but I would not remove a valid free license, even if it seems obvious. It provides additional protection. If PD-ineligible is the only avenue we can host it, then obviously that would be the only tag. But we should add all tags that apply. For example if a licensed work expires in its country of origin, it would often make sense to add the PD tag, but still keep the free license for use in countries where it may still be copyrighted. Additionally, some of our icons do claim that CC did license their icons, by being virtue of a site which was freely licensed "unless otherwise noted". The icons are trademarked, but that is separate from copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The two examples you give relate to different cases. PD in one country, but not worldwide, and borderline ToO, but I don't understand why you want to keep a copyright license for an obvious PD file. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg, I got your point. CC says "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license." And they are NOT saying contents at are NOT freely licensed. So we can assume they are CC BY 4.0 licensed? :) Jee 15:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, so fine to add a C-BY-4.0 license, but not a CC-BY-something else (2/3/SA, etc.). Yann (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
They were CC-BY-something else at the time of original upload here. As for ToO... that is inherently country-by-country and if there is anything we know about copyright, is that it's never obvious. There are always surprising results. Just because it's below the line in one country does not mean it won't be above the line elsewhere. I have no problem adding the PD-ineligible tag but I do have a problem removing valid CC tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeking input on Flight path data deletion tag[edit]

Hi, one of the biggest news stories worldwide is the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525‎. An administrator on the Flightradar24 forum released a CSV and KML file for the media to use, and stated "I was talking with a lady on CNN for almost 1 hour yesterday to explain the data in first post"

Can anyone contribute to Commons:Deletion requests/File:4U9525 flight path v1.svg

Thanks, Aronzakcommons2 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this copyrighted[edit]

The same emblem is in they jersey

I created this Latvia national ice hockey team badge fi:Tiedosto:Latvian jääkiekkomaajoukkueen tunnus.svg from here File:Coat of arms of Latvia.svg so it is the badge copyrighted? --Zunter (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Lähde (source?) is clear, Päiväys (author?) could be you, and Zscout370 + Nelg for the lion + griffin parts. The Republic of Latvia MAY discuss further legal details with you.:tongue:Be..anyone (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Lähde = Source, Päiväys = Date, Tekijä = Author --Zunter (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The coat of arms of Latvia as such is in the public domain, so you can freely use the symbology, but you may want to credit User:Zscout370 who did the SVG code. Otherwise your image would not be copyrightable. I suspect though that the emblem has been trademarked by the Latvian ice hockey association. De728631 (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
So someone can upload the file to Commons? --Zunter (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential copyvio issue[edit]

Could an admin please take a look at these two images, uploaded as own work, with no camera Exif detail, by Ragazzi99 (talk · contribs).

Neither image is consistent with other images by the same editor, which do Include camera Exif details. Due to their low quality and panoramic style I get the impression they are cropped images of another photo, possibly from a large wall display, rather than his/ her own images taken from the air. Hopefully I am wrong but if not then they are potentially a copyvio issue. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ragazzi99, Ragazzi00: Could you explain that? Yann (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • They do seem cropped but we'd have to find the original image on the net to demonstrate that. They look more like cropped pictures taken from a commercial airplane to me. The glass of airline windows often degrades picture quality. Maybe they were cell phone pictures, or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Below T.O.O. but with copyright mark?[edit]

I'm referring to Porsche's "Nobody's Perfect" poster, seen here. It doesn't seem to meet the threshold of originality under US or German copyright law, being made of only text and six straight lines, but it does have a copyright mark in the bottom left. Would this indicate an exception of some sort, or is the copyright mark meaningless due to ineligibility?

I'd say this is meaningless. I'm not aware of simple text like that being copyrighted in Germany. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I feel like the amount of text might actually be enough to be copyrightable. -- King of ♠ 23:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it is creative to claim modesty while bragging about winning the first 8 places in a race. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
People will often claim copyright even if there might not be -- threshold of originality is generally not clear-cut, so to be safe they will claim it -- probably done as a matter of course on all their posters. It may well be valid in say the UK (they have a typographicsl arrangement copyright) -- the notice is not just for the U.S. markets. That all said, that much text could get a literary copyright. Short phrases are not copyrightable but once you get to a few sentences it might be. It won't get a graphical copyright in the U.S., but literary is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)