Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Spanish motion picture rating icons[edit]

Dear all, I was wondering if these images, credited everywhere to the Ministry of Culture of Spain from 2010, would fall under either {{PD-SpanishGov}} or {{PD-shape}}. (If so, i would take them to the Illustration workshop for cute little SVG images.) – Máté (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not all public works in Spain are in public domain. The works must fit the description in the template. So, where are these diagrams from? Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Several sites icluding El País name the Ministerio de Cultura as the source for the pictograms, but I have not found them on (they are from 2010, they may have been taken off since, as most stuff relating to ICAA is at now). They were clearly designed for mass use, however that does not necessarily mean compability with Commons. Is PD-shape not an option here because of the cone, or is it? – Máté (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Found 'em. Anexo II of BOE-A-2010-2728. – Máté (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that they haven't copyright because they are on the BOE and it hasn't copyright. But I'm not sure.--Sebasweee (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Everything that is published in the BOE are public domain by PD-SpanishGov, and this designs are explicitly defined in Anexo II, colors included. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 00:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you (y gracias) for all the comments. I'm taking it to the next step. – Máté (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Edward Loomis Davenport 2.jpg[edit]

This photo was taken before 1877 and the card looks like it was made for publication. So I suppose PD-1923 applies instead of the original uploader's GFDL/CC licence for a faithful scan. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right if the photo was published before 1923. If not then {{PD-US-unpublished}} will apply. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no reason to think a photo from an actor who died in 1877 in an obviously archaic photograph format wasn't printed before 1923. The problem is, once you hit 1923, there's a whole bunch of other rules that come into play, and PD-US-unpublished doesn't come into play until 2002... and I have more doubts that that's actually Edward Loomis Davenport than that that card wasn't published long before 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the scanning lacks originality to create another copyright, so {{PD-US-unpublished}} if not published or {{PD-1923}} if published before 1923 should be used. Poké95 09:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa 2014[edit]

The images in the different Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2014 categories need to be vetted for FOP violations. I'm going to try to work on it when I can, but would like some help. Elisfkc (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. The theme for Wiki Loves Africa 2014 is "Cuisine". However, I am struggling to seeing how COM:FOP applies to cuisines. In either case, I plan to take a look at each of the categories. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Library of Congress New Delhi[edit]

There are about 30 images from the South Asian Literary Recordings Project:
They are licensed as PD-USGov which I think is not correct if I understand [1] correctly: "All the literary works recorded as part of this Project are protected by United States copyright law (Title 17 of the U.S. Code) and/or by the copyright or neighboring-rights laws of other nations. [...] The written permission of the copyright owners and/or other rights holders (such as publicity and/or privacy rights) is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. It is your obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when downloading or otherwise distributing the recordings from the South Asian Literary Recordings Project web site." Can we keep those files or do they have to be deleted? --тнояsтеn 14:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The copyright statement is explicitly referring to the literary works -- the project was to record Indian authors reading selections of their own works. So the recordings cannot be uploaded, obviously. But... if the photos were taken by Library of Congress employees during those sessions, the PD-USGov tag would be correct. The photos do have some similarities, so they do sort of look like they were taken at the time they were being recorded, so that seems rather plausible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A derivative[edit]

I'm not sure if this file is counted as derivative of a protected photo. I think there should be a free license related to the painting on the wall. These files (1, 2, 3) also have the same situation. --Mhhossein talk 12:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

More likely than not, the photos are derivative works. You are correct in that photos of artistic works should have copyright or license tags for both the artwork and the photo. The information for the Carol M. Highsmith collection at the US Library of Congress indicates that photos in the collection that show artistic works may be restricted by virtue of the artist's copyright. In other words, it appears that Ms. Highsmith's releasing the photos into the public domain does not alter any copyrights on artistic works depicted in the photos. According to COM:FOP#United_States, the US does not have freedom of panorama for artwork. At the same time, the FOP info indicates that artwork that was installed before January 1, 1978 (presumably, this would include murals that were completed before that date) and for which copying or photographing the work was not actively prevented is out of copyright in the US. In such a case, the {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-not-renewed}} tag should be used for the artwork itself, in addition to any tag for the photo. At the same time, if the artwork is copyrighted and not freely licensed, then the images probably have to be deleted. --Gazebo (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There's a couple of considerations for public artworks like this. If the artwork is original, then it may be public domain as a condition of the project funding its creation. For some of the Highsmith collection, the murals are reproductions of public domain works, often with copies separately on Commons. In those cases there is no new copyright created by the act of creating the mural. I'm not claiming that's the case for these examples, but worth keeping in mind for other cases. -- (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like the mural was privately funded -- and disliked by the purchasers so they had it replaced within a year. So, the version in this photo no longer exists.[2][3] A photo of the entire building might be OK... much like a photo of a bottle would not be derivative of a label on that bottle. But... this does seem to be more focusing on the mural, which could well be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Vector versions of maps and schemas[edit]

What exactly is going on here? Is it a new consensus that an exact vector recreation of the same data still remains copyrighted if becomes an exact copy of already created and copyrighted raster map or schema? If so then we will definitely migrate all potentially vandalizable in such way materials to the local storage, but I'd like to clarify first as it can be just some unnecessary aggravated misunderstanding. --NeoLexx (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a new consensus; it's standard that an exact copy of a copyright work is copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear... Does this project still keep awareness of the non-copyrightable status of data and the unevitable similarity up to equality of images created with this data? Or is this the current consensus that say Battle of Jutland Sheer order cannot be currently illustrated? Because the proper order is already drawn and copyrighted? and anything else will be either exact copy of it or a deliberate data and fact corruption? Same for a number maps and schemas, obviously.
I do not refute the Commons rights to come to any current internal consensus if only expressible by human words. But for Wikipedia interests and timely article protection it would be useful to get some raw idea of how far Commons is planning to go with this particular endeavor. Thank you in advance. --NeoLexx (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
This isn't about consensus, it's about copyright law. Of course if the original image is not eligible for copyright, then the derivative work is not subject to that non-existent copyright. There have been further comments on the deletion request, please refer to that. BMacZero (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess you din't read me properly. It is not about line-by-line recreation of a copyright-free work. It is about data usage which (by using it properly) necessary leads to an identical work. Coming back to the ship order (but evenly apply to a number of maps and schemas): there is (by available data) an exact ships' disposition for a given moment of time, marked by proper navy ship signs. Is that the current Commons position that the first who used that data and copyrighted the work - that person (organization) is an exclusive copyright holder of the result of this particular data? So anyone else either has to use data for another time period, or to introduce some visual mistakes, or to use custom (non-navy) signs? This is the question of the topic, so "if it's copyrighted, then the copy is copyrighted as well" has no connection with it whatsoever. --NeoLexx (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
You stated that it is an identical copy of copyrighted work. In general, if just working from the data you produce an identical copy of a work, then the work isn't copyrightable. However, reality has many, many ways in which it can be visualized, and things can change massively depending on what is and isn't shown, and what is and isn't idealized. Compare, say, File:1975_MBTA_commuter_rail_map.jpg, File:MBTA Commuter Rail map.png, and File:MBTA Commuter Rail Map.svg. They're all slightly different time periods, but even without that, despite being stylized, non-proportional, representations of the same system, they're quite different in design choices.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The most interesting. It looks like no one has seen the scheme in Frost. But evrebody is sure that image is a copy of Frost... --Sas1975kr (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Lee Grant publicity photo, 1967[edit]

Can someone review this photo of Lee Grant from 1967? I'll confirm with the seller if anything is on the back. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC) The seller replied back stating that nothing is on the reverse. Note that the photo is described as an "original vintage photo FROM YEAR OF ISSUE." --Light show (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)