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.
 

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)
You need to search on the name of the copyright owners, not necessarily the subject (though that can help too). Sometimes the titles don't include the subject's name, or the photo is part of a book or serial which was renewed, things like that. Any renewal for this should be on www.copyright.gov so they are easier to search for. If there no 1951 for "Universal Pictures" which might possibly cover this, then it would be OK. If it's a film still, that would be an issue, but a separate photograph would not be covered by the film, so you are looking for other types of publications which were renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 5 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)
I did a search myself and did not find anything, so it's OK by me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 5 December 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)
@Magog the Ogre: @Revent But what is the problem if all the shields are in the same website and this allows sharing if reference is made to the origin? Robslpy (talk) 20:57, 5 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)

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)
Looks promising about the re-use part. Is there a link with the considerations, or the debate you mentioned? --Hannolans (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Regrettably no, the debate was made mainly in committee sessions and the Congress only make shorthand (taquigráficas) of the sessions in the chamber of deputies and senator. Anyways, i'll try to get the opinion of legislator and copyright lawyers if i can. (http://www1.hcdn.gov.ar/sesionesxml/item.asp?per=134&r=6&n=15 shorthand of that session). Basically, the idea is to do whatever with want with that information and exceptions are about personal information and goverment secrets. --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 03:06, 5 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)
  • I agree. Pixelating or otherwise obfuscating the newspaper text would be a good move, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus: So, the file can't be left at this state and at the same time is not so problematic to be deleted? --Mhhossein talk 15:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's very borderline. I'd probably prefer to go on the safe side. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus: Deletion per PRP?
It has already been cropped; what's left is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes I see, however I think it needs to stay behind the "borderline", where it's located now. I think, by safer side, Jo-Jo Eumerus means "Pixelating or otherwise obfuscating the newspaper text." --Mhhossein talk 05:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It's no longer on the borderline. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg: Jo-Jo Eumerus's comment was made two days after the file was cropped. --Mhhossein talk 11:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
In that case, I completely disagree with "borderline" then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The visible writing on the newspaper is not copyrightable. Even the subtitle to the photo on the newspaper, at eleven words, isn't really copyrightable, and it's also marginally visible. The text is irrelevant here.
When we're talking de minimis, we're always going to be talking about some place near the line, but I think the original was okay. (Fair use and de minimis are hard to work worth sometimes for Commons, since a court case will never really have to cut the distinction.) The current version, even with cropping to focus on the newspaper (which, Commons:De minimis says we don't have to worry about), would be hard to worry about as a copyright infringement. The original copyrighted elements are gone or obscured by the microphone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Prosfilaes: Thanks for the comment. Naturally, there might be different views in such cases. However, I would agree with you regarding the focused photo on the paper, if the microphone had stroke through the eyes. --Mhhossein talk 17:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
That's completely out of proportion with any of the cases cited on Commons:De minimis, none of which have such significant obliteration of a major part of the copyrighted image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that "a major part of the copyrighted image" is obliterated in this case. --Mhhossein talk 18:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not the focus of the photo (a different meaning than "in focus"); the newspaper photo is incidental to me. I don't think it would have mattered what content was present on the newspaper -- the photo does not seem to be trading on that expression at all; it's just there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:51, 8 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)
I tend to agree with Srittau: "recognised associations" linked with Governmental organizations and ONGs are organizations working in a way or the other for/with the government or linked to it. I found in the Net, as an example, a veterans association. So, in the categories you linked, the files from a football club were kept for TOO. If there are some other file from a FC that have been kept just for PD-MX, maybe we have to do a cleanup. --Ruthven (msg) 08:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Amitie 10g: Thank you for compiling that, it may be useful in deciding whether new DRs or REFUND requests are needed. However, I really don't think that the ratio of previous DRs kept vs deleted is a sane metric for deciding what our policy should be with regards to what in essence is a point of law. Especially when you include things like Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Manuscrito_Gobernadorjpg.jpg as part of your "keep"s list. That keep had literally nothing to do with this question. Storkk (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Bottom line: Sport club logos are NOT covered by PD-MEX. They can be PD due to age or TOO, tho. Si? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
This should be confirmed by a Mexican user; this is the purpose of this thread. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually @Salvador alc: confirmed that in the conversation you linked. Right? --Ruthven (msg) 15:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Todd anthony tyler 2017.jpg[edit]

Hello, I am in the middle of trying to get an image cleared for use in Wikipedia. I have had the file File:Todd anthony tyler 2017.jpg

deleted because I was missing a assignment of copyright permissions letter. I now have the required permissions and I want to know how to submit an OTRS requesting reinstatement - sorry if this sounds silly but I cannot find the area that tells me how to do this.Neil Kindness (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Commons:OTRS has instructions including the email address permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org Dankarl (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Image of the alphabet[edit]

Hello. I have a question about uploading images to Commons. So, I have found a page from copyrighted book (was published in 1990). This page contains a list of Tibetan and Arabic letters, used for Balti language. Can I cut out this list und upload it to Commons under the following license? {{PD-script}} And can I upload other similar lists of letters under the license, which was mentioned above?

The page from the book, which contains a list of letters, is in this file (page 2, figure 2). Other page from the copyrighted book, which contains a list of Bengali letters for the Kokborok language (page 5, figure 1).صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The alphabet as well as standard typefaces are not copyrighted. So, I guess that you can. Ruslik (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Russia and unknown author[edit]

Aloha! Is there a specific provision in the Russian law regarding unknown authors? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As I remember this is 70 years after creation. Ruslik (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

PD-Turkey[edit]

IMHO we should add Turkish copyright law states that laws, rules, regulations, notifications, circular letters and juridical decisions which are officially promulgated or announced are not protected by copyright. to the PD-Turkey template. I don't think we need a separate template for PD-TR-GOV. Thoughts? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the practice with other countries? Ruslik (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Many are split up into two tags, but there are some that are combined. In general I thought the direction was to make more specific tags (e.g. prefer PD-US-no_notice instead of a more catch-call PD-US) so that users in other countries have a more specific idea as to why a work is PD and can make better determinations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Vodafone Logo klein.svg[edit]

This file is licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}. If that licensing is correct, then I am wondering whether en:File:Vodafone logo.png can be converted from non-free to PD using the same license. Vodafone's headquarters is in London, and the TOO for the UK tends to be lower than other countries, If the logo is not accpetable for Commons, then it might be OK as en:Template:PD-USonly and treated as public domain locally on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This logo is just a comma, upside down. So, I think it may be not-copyrighted even in UK. Ruslik (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

FOP violations at Disneyland Paris[edit]

I have just opened up 11 deletion requests (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) regarding FOP violations of images from Disneyland Paris. There are still 23 more sub-categories of Category:Disneyland Park (Paris) that need to be checked and have deletion requests opened, and that's before even checking the other park. However, I thought it was best not to inundate the deletion request page and limit it to these 11 at the moment.

Some of the images that I have nominated for deletion are images of lanterns. I was wondering if this was a correct interpretation of FOP, since I would regard lanterns, such as this one, to be a work of art and part of a structure. Elisfkc (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Pugh2015.jpg[edit]

I think that might be some kind of official photo based upon this press release and this news article. The article is dated after the file was uploaded, but the picture is described as a copyrighted campaign photo which means that it might not be the "own work" of the uploader. Not sure if this is a copyvio, but it seems like OTRS verification should be required. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree. Ruslik (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction between license and explicit licensing text[edit]

Hi all, I'd like to know what should be done with the videos from a YouTube channel with the CC YouTube license which, at the same time, includes the following text in the video descripcion: Queda prohibida toda reproducción en cualquier medio sin permiso expreso de www.segoviaaldia.es. Se permite el enlace directo del vídeo con el código de YouTube, en webs, redes sociales y blogs. Queda terminantemente prohibida la descarga del vídeo para cualquier uso. Se detectan las IPS de descarga para actuar en consecuencia.

That is:

Reproduction in any medium without the express permission of www.segoviaaldia.es is prohibited. Direct linking of the YouTube video by means of its code is allowed on websites, social networks and blogs. It is strictly forbidden to download the video for any use. Download IP addresses are detected to act accordingly.

Any idea? Thanks --Discasto talk 21:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC) PS: the channel is this one

I think it is better to avoid uploading these videos to Commons. Ruslik (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Monroe and Miller, 1956[edit]

Can someone please review this photo of them? It shows the front and back. A search under the name of the photographer also came up blank for any year after 1978. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)