Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: 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.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.


Licensing on {{Gov.pl}}[edit]

I know that the Government of Poland has switched the license to CC-BY-NC-ND in August 2022. However, I found that the old CC-BY license was still present on the English version of the website. I want to know if the CC-BY license can still be applied to those pages with CC-BY license? Pinging @Borysk5, Verbcatcher, Ankry, and De728631: who have participated in the previous discussions regarding the license change. A1Cafel (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps @JWilz12345: could give some ideas on this? --A1Cafel (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They might just have forgotten to switch the licence tag on the English content. However, that is their fault then because the translated version of the website is a different work than the Polish original. So one could claim that the English pages are still freely licensed as long as the current licence footer is displayed there. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Because there are some difference in terms of content. (Usually the Polish version had more content). --A1Cafel (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They also didn't change it on some other subpages, I think this may their mistake. Anyway, their loss, if you see photo with CC-BY at footer of page, feel free to use it. Borysk5 (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graphics published by the IPCC[edit]

Background: The w:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the United Nations body responsible for advancing knowledge on human-induced w:climate change, publishes numerous graphics that are useful for presentation on Wikipedia.

Issues: Questions have arisen, whether (1) IPCC graphics themselves, or (2) newly generated graphics using the data underlying the graphics, may be freely uploaded to Commons. IPCC content is not explicitly published under a CC license: https://www.ipcc.ch/copyright/

1. Is it proper to have uploaded (for example) this IPCC graphic to Commons: File:IPCC AR6 WG3 SPM-50 Mitigation Options.png ?
  • Note that the uploader created his own template: Template:IPCC based on the proposition that Wikipedia/Wikimedia constitutes "media".
2. Was this Commons graphic, based on data underlying the IPCC graphic, proper File:MitigationOptions costs potentials IPCCAR6WGIII rotated-de.svg ?
  • Sub-issue: Is this Commons graphic a prohibited "derivative work" of the IPCC graphic, or a new graphic based on the (unprotectedCC-licensed) data underlying the graphic?

One discussion was recently begun here, without resolution.

Please let us know your reasoned answers to the above questions, as IPCC content is central to widely viewed wikipedia articles. RCraig09 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • From the copyright page linked above, "You may freely download and copy the material contained on this website for your personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute it or to compile or create derivative works there from, subject to more specific restrictions that may apply to specific materials." That doesn't look to be something compatible with Commons. No comment on question 2. Ravensfire (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Ravensfire that the copyright on the IPCC page is insufficient for free use on Wikimedia projects.
Regarding Question 2: A new plot based on the same data would seem perfectly fine; however, File:MitigationOptions costs potentials IPCCAR6WGIII rotated-de.svg is not that, but an exact translation of the graphic into German and therefore in my opinion a clear derivative work. If one would make, say, a pie chart of the same data, or group the data in a different way, etc, then that would be no issue.
But the present graphic is clearly a reverse-engineered copy of a copyrighted graphic, and that is not OK.
So it would only be fine if the plot of the data would be sufficiently simple and unoriginal not to attract any copyright in the first place; to me, the grouping on several levels seems beyond that, but maybe others also have opinions on this point.
See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Scientific_or_technical_diagrams for details. Felix QW (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On question 1, I agree with the above commenters that this material is not eligible for Commons, and {{IPCC}} is misleading and should be deleted.
    On question 2, I believe this too is ineligible. Looking into what data is actually being presented at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-7/, it's clear that this isn't simple raw data (e.g. sensor or survey data) but is the result of significant professional research, investigation, estimation, analysis, etc. This meets "A set of data based on estimates. Estimates require some form of creativity (often from experts) and should be considered as creative content" as copyrighted in COM:Copyright rules by subject matter#Scientific or technical diagrams. (Additionally, I believe presenting the data in this graphic took a fair amount of creative work, far more than simply presenting a data table.) -M.nelson (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The data is released under a CC-BY license, though, so derivative works of the data only would be fine. Felix QW (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, I see, thank you. I agree with your comment above "Regarding Question 2" about re-using the data vs the graphic. @RCraig09: could you clarify your OP that the data isn't unprotected but is CC licensed (at the Accessibility tab of Felix QW's link)? -M.nelson (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@M.nelson: Thanks to User:Felix QW for finding IPCC's CC licensing of data. Per my 17:31 'Supplement', below, I am in full agreement that Wikimedians' plotting of data does not constitute copyright infringement (except for "databases" such as phone books, under U.S. law). Beyond these particular files, at https://ipcc-data.org/copyright.html I get the message "www.ipcc.ch refused to connect", so it would be best if the "ipcc-data.org" link referred to all IPCC data and not just to a particular dataset for a particular graphic. Can anyone here confirm what https://ipcc-data.org/copyright.html says? RCraig09 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The embedded frame at https://ipcc-data.org/copyright.html leads to the same copyright statement given for the IPCC website proper, prohibiting commercial reuse. I had also been of the opinion that the facts itself should not be copyrightable, but then Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Scientific_or_technical_diagrams does speak of exceptions where the data is derived by a sufficiently creative process to attract copyright, and for the present purposes and in light of the CC-BY license with the dataset we do not need to decide the matter. Felix QW (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The IPCC copyright notice also says: "...for media use it is sufficient to cite the source while using the original graphic or figure." This made me assume that using the original file is in line with the copyright, while the SVG is not. And Wikipedia / Wikimedia are media, or would anyone disagree? - The uploader Hedgehoque (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since Wikimedia projects are promoting free content, there are tight restrictions on the use of non-free media here (see meta:Non-free content). For Commons, non-free media are strictly prohibited (COM:Fair use), while the English Wikipedia has tight limits on their use (en:Non-free content). Therefore a license that does not allow commercial reuse and derivative works is unsuitable for upload to Commons. Felix QW (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have written a request for clarification to the IPCC secretariat. Hedgehoque (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While hosting on Commons probably conforms to their license, i.e. it would not be copyright infringement to host it here, it violates our own self-imposed conditions in Commons:Licensing, where all works we host must conform to https://freedomdefined.org definitions. In particular, we require that works we host be allowed to be used commercially. (It's more than just policy; it's part our founding requirements, and is a general requirement for content throughout Wikimedia projects.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Felix QW said, allowance for "media use" is insufficient for Commons/Wikimedia. We require allowance of re-use for any purpose, not just "media use" (regardless of whatever that means). -M.nelson (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Supplement to my original post:
— If an original IPCC graphic is mere routine charting of data (a column chart, etc.), I think the routine chart itself doesn't meet the threshold of originality and doesn't warrant copyright protection in the first place. However, if there is original content beyond the routine charting, a genuine issue may arise, which we are discussing here.
— Separately, it's clear that much of the data that the IPCC charts, is the result of immense scientific and analyticl effort, but it's not the data itself that is protected by copyright(except something that's large enough to be called a database (like a phone book)—which is protectable under at least U.S. law). I think this consideration gives Wikimedians considerable leeway in charting IPCC data. RCraig09 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RCraig09: While I think most of your analysis is correct, the odd digression about phone books definitely isn't. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.. In the U.S., size and effort are completely irrelevant to whether or not something can be copyrighted. What matters is creativity and originality. Nosferattus (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus: ~blush~ My memory of old cases appears to be incorrect. I may have been thinking about something like w:Database right. Thank you for your response. RCraig09 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Please note that I am creator of the plot that is object of question 2.) Concerning question 2, Felix QW brought up the possible issue that the grouping of the CC-licensed data might bring the original plot of the data above a threshold of originality, and hence a reproduction might constitute a copyright infringement. But this grouping has not been a result of the process of creating the graphic. It exists independently, as can be seen e.g. from Table 12.3 of the IPCC report ([1]), where the very same data is presented in form of a table with the same grouping. So, the plot made simply use of a grouping that already existed elsewhere, and hence the plot of data (including the grouping) is sufficiently simple as not to constitute a copyright infringement. Concerning question 1, in my opinion presenting the data in this graphic did not take much creative work. Take a look at File:MitigationOptions_costs_potentials_IPCCAR6WGIII_rotated-de.svg, where I describe how I created the plot. The graphic is a standard stacked bar chart with whiskers, all these elements are supported out of the box by established plotting tools. Given the data (and grouping), it is straightforward to write a small gnuplot script that creates such a standard bar chart. It requires only basic programming skills and, IMO, no creativity. --DeWikiMan (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
— I think that the grouping itself required creative decision making—whether or not the grouping happened "elsewhere" in the IPCC document also. That creative decision making places the original IPCC graphic over the threshold of originality and makes it subject to copyright protection.
— It seems that the discussion here is concluding that routine plotting of data is permissible under both copyright law and the more restrictive Wikimedia standards, but that copying or close recasting of non-trivial IPCC graphics are not permissible here. (The issue is not the "straightford"ness of GNU plotting—which most people can't do btw—but how the data is plotted.) RCraig09 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had another look into the CC-licensed data [2]. The grouping is part of the data, and hence is CC-licensed, too.
My point was that the IPCC graphic under consideration, given the data (and grouping), is trivial, since there is nothing special about how it was created, it is a standard bar chart with whiskers.
Concerning the grouping, since I often use IPCC-sources, I'd like to digress a little and would like to ask for clarification: I agree that the grouping itself required some form of creative decision making. But does that mean that - were it not CC-licensed - using this grouping alone, e.g. in textual form, would constitute a copyright infringement? Maybe someone can point me somewhere where this is clarified. --DeWikiMan (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're projecting too much into the word "data" when you say "the grouping is part of the data": grouping relates to how data is arranged, and therefore can't be "part of" the data. Separately, it's possible that a textual arrangement could meet the threshold of originality; the particular arrangement would have to be analyzed to determine whether it warrants protection. On a side note: it's the arrangement of bars in the chart that we're talking about, not whether it's a "standard" bar chart. RCraig09 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. Of course if the textual arrangement is explicitly CC licensed, that changes things as far as the textual representation is concerned. RCraig09 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case, it is quite clear that the sector (i.e. the grouping) is part of the CC-licensed data, since it is an element within the data-dictionary, see the tab "data-dictionary" under [3].
As concerns the arrangement of the bars, - given the grouping - I don't see anything in it that required creativity. --DeWikiMan (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Data dictionary" tab seems to be a definition of the format and content of the data, not the data itself. I agree that, "given the grouping", not much creativity is required to chart it (GNU plotting or otherwise); however, we're not assured we as outsiders are "given" the grouping in the first place. RCraig09 (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, I agree, that's what the data dictionary is, it defines the format and content, types and structure of the data, but itself is "only" metadata. So my wording was bad, I should have said "it is defined in the data-dictionary".
My point was not, that the data dictionary is licensed (though, perhaps a case could be made that it is), but that it defines the (licensed) data. According to the data-dictionary, "the data" consists of rows (tuples) of fields (data elements), where each row constitutes the data for a mitigation option. This data includes a field called "sector". So the sector and the assignment of other field values to a value of the field sector is part of the licensed data. Given, that a mitigation option is assigned a sector, in my opinion, there is nothing creative about visually "grouping" it by sector. (Actually, this the way in which the data itself has been stored.) --DeWikiMan (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— You've made good description of how the data is organized. I agree that, if we assume a dataset is already arranged in rows of fields, there is "nothing creative about visually grouping it by sector". However, as I've alluded to previously, that's not the point concerning whether the resulting graphic doesn't meet the threshold of originality warranting copyright protection. The critical point is that the IPCC graphic does indeed possess the organized grouping of data, and it's irrelevant that the grouping is also reflected in a separate IPCC array of rows and fields (it's speculation, which of the graphic or the array preceded the other). Critically, the (presumably unprotectable) data are the values in the array, not the array itself. (In more abstract copyright terms, the data itself corresponds to the (presumably unprotectable) idea, and the array's organization corresponds to the (presumably protectible) expression of the idea/data.)
— I think that what we as Wikimedians may validly upload is a routine presentation of the data itself—without infringing on the protectible IPCC arrangement scheme. I don't think that this is an instance in which both the IPCC graphic and the Wikimedia graphic are "routine" or "uncreative" representations of the data, and so I think we Wikimedians must take care not to simply copy the IPCC graphic, but we must do the extra work representing the data in our own graphic. RCraig09 (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for trying to clarify again, RCraig. But, frankly, it is hard to get to grips with your position.
  1. I am confused by what you mean by "unprotectable". "The Data for Figure SPM.7" (published here [4]) is CC-licensed, isn't it? As concerns the "speculation", the existence of this data (including it's organiziation in rows) must have preceded the existence of Figure SPM.7, otherwise it couldn't have been created.
  2. We seem to agree, that plotting Figure SPM.7 (including the "grouping" by sector) from Data for Figure for SPM.7 (including its "arrangement" in rows, which include the sector) is simple enough for it to be a "routine presentation" of the data.
  3. I think we disagree what "data" means. I did not merely wish to "make a good description of how the data" is structured, but wanted to make clear that structured data is data. (a common understanding of the term, see e.g. [5]). Clearly, use of primitive values is only possible when they are associated with each other, e.g. arranged in rows (e.g. a float value of "Potential in cost bin 0-20" must be "arranged" with a string value of "mitigation option" for it to make any sense at all). A CC-license on isolated primitive values only, and not on the "arrangement" of values in rows (records), would be completely useless. So I believe the IPCC meant to license data as defined in the data dictionary, and that includes rows (structured data), which also includes the association of other values with a sector (the data element, on which, trivially, the rows are "grouped").
  4. So, to summarize, I believe, what is licensed is data, consisting of rows of primitive values, including the assignment of values to a sector. I also believe that going from this (licensed) structured data to the plot under discussion is a routine representation.
Now, presumably the critical question is, what exactly the IPCC meant to license. I have not found a clear answer to this yet on ipcc-data.org. I will raise a ticket with their helpdesk and ask for clarification. In my experience, it could take very long until we get a response. If you have sources to back up your understanding of what you consider the licensed "data" is, what the license covers, please point me to them. They might really help me understand your view.
--DeWikiMan (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
— By protectable I merely meant "a proper subject of copyright protection"... copyrightable subject matter. Unprotectable here describes something not properly subject to copyright protection.
— A simplified example of what I mean is that: the values plugged into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet constitute the data. The particular arrangement and organization of the spreadsheet, including the order and organization of field designators at the top of columns, and the order and organization of row descriptions at the left side of rows, are not part of the data. Excel has an internal charting function that users can define, and when data is entered into the rows and columns, Excel immediately amends the chart to reflect newly added data. We can freely use the data—the values—but a non-trivial organization of the values into specifically defined rows and columns constitutes original creativity that we have to respect. Some individual spreadsheet organizations may be trivial and routine; however, other spreadsheet organizations, like the ones under consideration here, may constitute such non-trivial original creativity that we must respect under copyright (and even moreso under Wikimedia's stricter rules). 17:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Supplemented RCraig09 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, we might be close to understanding each other. First of all, I didn't want to further delve into the argument I made at "19:52, 20 November 2022". I don't think this is necessary. My argument, from "20:49, 20 November 2022" on, was a different one and not about the presentation (visual/textual arrangement) of data in a spreadsheet or table. (That I directly linked to the spreadsheet must have been confusing, sorry for that.) It is essentially about what, I have good reason to believe, the data is according to the definition in the data-dictionary.
What I believe, the (licensed) data is, are rows (tuples, records) of values of associated data elements. So, according to the definition in the data-dictionary [6] the data is defined as:
       (sector name :String, option name :String, potential with cost lower than the reference :Float, potential in cost bin 0-20 :Float, ...)
and then, at least in my view, the data is (with the rows in random order):
       ("AFOLU","Forest management, fire management",0,0.38,0,0.78,0.22,0,1.4,,0.6,2.8)
       ("Energy sector","Hydropower",0,0.11,0.11,0.11,0,0,0.32,smooth,0.16,0.48)
       ("Industry","Material efficiency",0,0,0.93,0,0,0,0.93,,0.7,1.16)
       ("Energy sector","Solar energy",2.7,0.6,0.6,0.6,0,0,4.5,smooth,2,7)
       ...
I don't think, we are only allowed to use isolated, atomic values, and not their logical associations with each other. This wouldn't make any sense, and I don't believe this is, what the IPCC meant to license. So I don't think, this is the data (in random order):
       0,0.6,smooth,smooth,"Industry",0.32,0.22,0,,"Material efficiency","AFOLU",0.16,"Hydropower", ...
So, if the first view is correct, crucially, both the sector and the association of other values with a sector is in the data. It is not a "row description" that resides somewhere outside of the data only in a spreadsheet or elsewhere, as a separate idea. Clearly, the "sector name" is a data element that partitions the rows, i.e. it logically groups the rows by sector. This, I think, might be considered a creative step: define suitable sectors and associate mitigation options with sectors, so that we have a partitioning of the options. But with that step accomplished, visually grouping the options by sector means simply ordering and labeling them with sectors. That involves, in my view, no creativity at all.
Hence my view is that, all that might reasonably be considered creative is in the (licensed) data. Plotting from this data the graphic under discussion is a routine representation of the data.
Sorry, if my argument was confusing and not clear.
--DeWikiMan (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all, thanks to RCraig09 for starting this discussion and thanks to everyone to provide their insights! I've found it very interesting and also quite confusing. Have we reached an easy-to-communicate consensus yet? I guess the verdict is that this graph (the one with the mitigation options) ought to be deleted from Commons? And if someone was to re-create it how would it have to look? Could you, DeWikiMan, perhaps recreate it in a way that is copyright conforming so that a) we have a good example for future cases and b) we can use it at? Only if it's not too much trouble for you. If you don't have time, perhaps you could outline how you would do it and then I could try to do it (I've never created a new graph for Wikipedia). EMsmile (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DeWikiMan: My Excel example was perhaps too trivial an example. I used Excel "field" (column) designators and labels (row designators) as an example of a particular expression of the meaning that is concretely associated with atomic data values; the IPCC dataset involves a hierarchy that is more complex.
— We seem to agree that creativity lies in the hierarchical "sector"-ization (hierarchical arrangement, grouping, organization, categorization, etc...) of the atomic data values. We disagree whether this particular arrangement/grouping/organization/categorization of data values is part of the (unprotectable) data itself.
— Of course I agree that each individual data value "has" inherent meaning associated with it. You've correctly pointed out that tuple values can't be scrambled randomly into meaninglessness. However, there are various ways that the data (the unprotectable "idea" in copyright parlance) can be hierarchically organized and still be correct. In this (non-trivial) IPCC dataset presentation, these associations are specific and concrete (the copyright-protected "expression" in copyright parlance). If, as in this case, a dataset is non-trivial, the concrete expression of those associations will vary with the differently-organized datasets of the same data values (in other words, the IPCC could have organized the dataset-as-a-whole differently). That's why I say we can't simply copy or make derivative works of this particular hierarchical organization of this IPCC dataset. In non-trivial datasets like this, we should do the extra work to go straight to the data values (the "idea") and not merely copy the organization (the "expression" of the idea).
— (Separate from copyright issues: the motivation to avoid doing original data organization ourselves, suggests that the graphic is as complex as the dataset—probably too detailed for a lay audience encyclopedia.) RCraig09 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "this ... IPCC dataset presentation" and "this particular hierarchical organization". You don't seem to allude to the concrete presentation in the excel sheet, and neither to an organization of the data in tuples (rows), as defined in the data dictionary.
Yes, perhaps the dataset-as-a-whole could be "organized" differently. For example, since the data element "sector name" partitions the tuples, we might think of a normalized organization of the data, where we would have two types of rows (tuples): one for "sector", one for "mitigation option" with associated potential-values, and a n-1-association between these two types of tuples. This could be considered a "hierarchical organisation". But, since the sector is in the data as defined in the data-dictionary, every "organization" of this data would have to preserve the sector values, i.e. their full meaning, including the logical association with other values. (It would have to preserve the "idea" as a whole.) If we left out the "sector name"-data values, added other ones, or changed their association with mitigation options, this would not be a re-organization but either a subset or a change of the data. Something would be lost. (But perhaps, this is not the kind of "organization of data" you had in mind?)
So, as you state above: "We disagree whether this particular arrangement/grouping/organization/categorization of data values is part of the (unprotectable) data itself." (To be more precise: I'd say the partitioning data values are in the data. "Grouping" or "arranging" the data by these values is a triviality and could be done by a computer program.) You seem to consider the sectors, by which the data is partitioned and hence trivially can be visually or otherwise grouped, not data values and not part of the data, even though they are defined as being data elements? If so, I fail to understand why.
@EMsmile: An English version of the German SVG wouldn't be much work. In my view, it would be conforming, but, of course, such an affront is ruled out, since we haven't reached a consensus, and I am not sure if we will. But if we do not make use of the fact that the sectors partition the mitigation options, would that be fine, according to your view, @RCraig?
So, I could create a very similar bar chart, but instead of ordering the options by "sector name", I could order them by "total potential" (in descending order).
In order not to loose the information about mitigation potential per sector, for each bar a "sector name" label could be added to the left of each mitigation option label. If these combined labels become too lengthy, we could abbreviate sectors, with a legend beneath that explains the abbr. (e.g. ES - energy sector, I - Industry). An option, that would more clearly present the information as it pertains to sectors, could be to have an additional panel below the bar chart, where we would depict sums of potentials for each sector.(This would be a presentation derived from the partitioning of the data by sector.)
--DeWikiMan (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi DeWikiMan, I am really keen to get a workable solution for this graph. Should we take the discussion about how to (re-)create the graph in a suitable manner to a more suitable location, e.g. the talk page of? E.g. I was wondering if it would help to break the big graph into separate graphs (one for each sector) - would that perhaps help to reduce our copyright problem that comes from the "grouping" of the data by sector? EMsmile (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello ESmile, yes, that is fine. Why don't you start a discussion at a location that you think is suitable and ping me from there? But, as I understand it, if the grouping was a problem (which I don't think it is), I doubt that we could use this particular grouping at all. --DeWikiMan (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DeWikiMan: I think the narrow point is boiling down to whether, as you say, "'Grouping' or 'arranging' the data by these values is a triviality and could be done by a computer program". However, the grouping/arranging isn't trivial. A computer could not do it. Grouping/arranging has to do with the meaning of the data (field names, categories, labels, etc) that only a human with subject-matter knowledge could perform. The undeniable complexity of the data definition page suggests that different humans would perform this non-trivial grouping/arranging in different ways, each way being a particular (protectable) expression of possible groupings/arrangements. P.S. Separately from copyright issues: maybe a subset of the data would be more appropriate content for a layperson's encyclopedia.RCraig09 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, yes, we have narrowed it down. And we can narrow it down further: For, when the sector values are in the data (e.g. as the first column of tuples) a computer program, in fact, can easily do the grouping itself. It is as simple as, e.g. this Python code with the pandas package dict(tuple(dataforspm7.groupby('sector'))).
So, perhaps, the even narrower issue is, whether picking the first column as the criterion to group the data can be considered creative enough for the graphic to pass a threshold? Now, if an intricate choice of a combination of several columns had to be made, and/or we would talk about several levels of hierarchy, it might. But in this case, we have a single, simple String-typed data element, that is at first position in the data records and that neatly partitions the data. So, even if we wouldn't know it's meaning, by general simple heuristics (that could be implemented in a program), it lends itself to the grouping.
And even if we would come to the conclusion, that one would need to know the meaning of "sector", just picking it for a simple grouping can, in my view, hardly be called creative. In fact, I am pretty sure that most humans - asked to group the mitigation options based on the given data - would pick the sector. The fact, that the sector data-element obviously suggests itself for grouping, should come as no surprise: Presumably, that is it's purpose for being in the "Data for Figure SPM.7", it's values and it's association with mitigation options have been defined in such a way as to easily group the records. Hence, simply picking it for grouping is obvious and can be done by non-experts.
Now, I think at the beginning there was consensus that - except perhaps for the grouping - the graphic was a routine representation of the data. And I wholeheartedly agree. But even without the grouping, for a presentation of this data (and, for that matter, almost any data, even more simple data) you have to make use of the meaning of data elements. E.g., for whiskers in a bar chart, you must pick the columns that "mean" an uncertainty range. To say, that something is a "routine presentation of data" only, if it does not make any use at all of the meaning, surely, would be overly restrictive. Then, I doubt there is any routine presentation at all.
So, even if we assume one had to know the meaning of "sector" to pick it for grouping, would this be any more creative than other cases of using the meaning of data? Is it more creative than, e.g., to put time on a X-axis and time-dependent values on a Y-axis, if one has a set of points (year,global mean surface temp)?
(As a sidenote, I don't think it is surprising at all that creating "Figure SPM.7" from "Data for Figure SPM.7" is routine, because the data-set has been created in such a way as to facilitate exactly this.)
I wonder, if there is any established case law or other legal sources that summarize, what the established opinion on "picking a single column for grouping a data-set of records" in copyright-law is. --DeWikiMan (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry to see you spend so much time on this issue, and I appreciate it. However, your delving into the internal coding details (which are largely beyond my understanding) doesn't deal with the basic issue that the data's organization (hierarchical categorization etc) requires conceptual subject-matter knowledge to begin with. I agree that charting already-organized/already-categorized data involves routine coding; however, it's the initial conceptual organization/categorization that in this case is original and creative. (In contrast, I don't think a chart of this simple example] would violate copyright or Wikimedia's standards, because the initial organization is unavoidable and the number of "categories" is 1 (no hierarchy).) That's why I think the IPCC chart is at least questionable re copyright and Wikimedia standards, and charting directly from the original atomic data values is the safest way to proceed here. Aside, choosing only a subset of the data for charting would be less overwhelming for a layperson to read in an encyclopedia.. RCraig09 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine. The code was only there to show you that the grouping is simple and can easily be done by a computer-program.

What I find kind of hard is, that - and please don't take it as blame, simply as a kind request - your reasoning is sometimes too vague for me. When I thought I'd understood what you were referring or agreeing to, and I am trying to apply it to the particular case under discussion (data elements, the data dictionary, data types, the concrete graphic), it feels like I am getting nowhere. But then, this is also fine, I am patient and will keep trying that we get to the gist of it - in as concrete terms as possible.

First of all, it would be good, if you could be more specific as to what "conceptual subject-matter knowledge" in your view is required for having a notion of what a "mitigation option" and a "sector" is. In my view, very many non-experts will have a basic understanding of these terms. I am not saying, that they would easily find a good way of defining sectors or associating mitigation options with sectors. But that's already in the data - so what is left is picking the sector for grouping. One does not need to be an expert for that. And even if one would know nothing about mitigation, as I said before, there is simple heuristics: E.g. in the data-dictionary, the data is organized in such a way that "sector name" is the leftmost data element, and the only data element to the left of the "mitigation option". This fact alone alone strongly suggests that it is in a sense "above" the option-element, unlike all other data elements (which also, unlike sector, are of number type). This conclusion requires no subject-matter knowledge. And there are other good reasons - the neat partitioning, the fact that it is the only other String-type data element - that a non-expert or a program could pick this data element.

We can also look at the issue from another angle: "[...] a graph, chart, or table that expresses data is treated the same as the underlying data." [7]. (BTW, another routine expression of data, that seems not too far from the one we discuss, is this Commons_talk:Threshold_of_originality#Another_FRED_chart.)

We seem already have come to the conclusion that plotting a bar for each row, and labeling the bar with "mitigation option" is a routine expression of the data. So, how would we "express" the data element "sector name" and it's association with "mitigation option"? Obviously, it would be a form of label on the row or on several rows (for, multiple rows have the same sector name). And then, noticing that the sector is a good way to "arrange" the options (string-type, no empty labels, a few options per sector) is, as I argued above, also a natural choice a layperson can make.

But then, perhaps with "initial" you don't mean "beginning with the data, and going from there to the graphic"? In that case, it would be helpful, if you could be more specific what you mean by "initial" and "to begin with". Now, if, prior to creating a data-set there is a "conceptualization" (and in this case, a rather simple one), and it's creative result is reflected completely or to a high degree in the data, then only the residue, that what is not reflected in the data can make an expression of the data creative.

In our case, that narrows our issue down to the picking the first data element "sector" to arrange the rows, doesn't it? Which requires no or close to no creativity. Everything else is reflected in the data. --DeWikiMan (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your constructiveness. I'm afraid that any discussion of coding details (data dictionary, etc) is not helping. I'll summarize: By unprotectable "idea" I simply mean the numerical (atomic) data; by possibly-protectable "expression" I mean the subject-matter-specific textual labels and their hierarchical relationship and organization. The textual labels, and the hierarchical organization of the labels, are not part of the data. "Initial" is self-explanatory: it's how a human(does not have to be an "expert") first decides on how to (hierarchically) organize the labels of the atomic data before they're placed into a spreadsheet, bar chart, etc.—the labels and their interrelationship require human subject-matter knowledge (not genius or expertise). The U. of Michigan essay(not a reliable reference as far as I can tell) shows both protectable and unprotectable charts—which seems to contradict its own prior general assertion that "a graph, chart, or table that expresses data is treated the same as the underlying data". Copyright law doesn't require genius or expeertise to deserve protection; it merely requires original work. These IPCC graphics aren't extreme cases, but I think they're "over the line" enough that we shouldn't merely copy them. I hope this clarifies. RCraig09 (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

Is File:Canada-Badge-Outline.png OK to keep as licensed? Even though COM:TOO Canada seems to be similar to COM:TOO US, I'm not sure this would be {{PD-logo}} even under US copyright law. It seems like might be at least a borderline case that meets the "exercise in skill and judgement" criterion under Canadian copyright law that's required for something to be eligible for copyright protection, which means it might need to be treated as such out of caution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd lean towards it exceeding COM:TOO Canada due to the skill and judgement. The overall design (selection and proportioning of the elements) and stylization of the soccer ball both seem to have taken design skill and judgement, exceeding something "so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise." (from COM:TOO Canada) -M.nelson (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1958 Herbert Hoover photo[edit]

File:Herbert Hoover color 1958.png is licensed as {{PD-USGov}} and it's sourced the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library Museum store, but the author is unknown. The USen:presidential library system appears to be operated and managed by the en:National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). NARA, however, is like the en:US post office in that it is an en:independent federal agency that is established by the US Congress, but otherwise seems to operate independently of the federal government. The copyright section of the NARA website states that "the vast majority of the digital images" it hosts are in the public domain, but that it also hosts some images that remain copyrighted and that separate permission maybe needed in some cases, which is something that seems pretty standard for government websites. The How is a Presidential library paid for and funded? section of the Hoover Library's website seems to say that some of its funding for operations (including staff salaries) comes from private sources, which seems to imply sort of a quasi-governmental status, and the Copyright and Citation section states that some of the material in the library are protected by copyright or of unknown copyright status. Should it, therefore, be just assumed that this photo is OK as licensed or should it be treated as an anonymous photo instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly: I found this postcard on eBay that shows the photo with a copyright by Bradley Smith. Smith was a freelance photographer, so {{PD-USGov}} does not appear to apply. It could be {{PD-US-not renewed}}, as a quick search of the copyright database didn't turn up anything relevant, but it would be better to know more about the photo (for example, it could have been first published in a book or magazine that did have its copyright renewed). Toohool (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for finding that Toohool. Maybe this needs further discussion at COM:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NARA is, full stop, part of the U.S. federal government (executive branch). It's not a little nebulous like the Smithsonian. Any works created by their employees are PD-USGov. That said, most of its material are records transferred from other government departments, the majority of which are PD-USGov of course, but it's always possible for third-party stuff to be collected by governmental departments then transferred along with other records. In this case, it would seem PD-USGov is unlikely, but Hoover must have had a print in his records, which eventually went to his presidential museum -- but that means it was published at the time. The fact they are using it likely means it is either PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed. So yes, I'd probably change to that (or just use PD-US). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I changed to "PD-US-not renewed", I cant tell if the photographer was a government employee, but their name does not appear in the renewal database. --RAN (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Festival of Lights Berlin - Freedom of Panorama[edit]

Festival of Lights 2022 - symbol foto

Copyright laws change over the time, so i think it better to ask first before I upload some images from the Berlin Festival of Lights I made but never published: Are fotos and videos from the Berlin Festival of Lights covered by Freedom of Panorama, or do the require VRT permission on Commons? Same question for the Blue Lights in Hamburg Harbour? C.Suthorn (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One freedom of panorama limitation relevant here is that it only covers permanent installations, not those only displayed as part of an exhibition. Felix QW (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Festival runs for 9 days (in 2022) and some, if not all, works were created to be shown only at the Festival, doesn't that meet the conditions for Freedom of Panorama in Germany? C.Suthorn (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The German federal court specifically answered the question of artwork created only for a temporary exhibition in the case of the covering of the parliament building, which was erected specifically for a time-bound presentation, and decided that such cases do not fall under freedom of panorama. Felix QW (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. If I may interject for a moment. For me, the artworks from the Festival of Lights are also not permanent and copyrighted. I support the potential deletion request, including that of my pictures. Best regards. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AI artwork - license review requested[edit]

Quantified Human by Alan Warburton

License review was requested a year ago

I just now went to the talk page of that image and posted a rationale of why I think the license is appropriate.

I do not think there is any controversy here, but when @Nosferattus: uploaded the image they requested Commons:License review, and I also think it is a good idea to get more confirmation of the license here.

Here are some odd things about this image:

  • It is AI generated
  • Commons does not have strong or certain AI policy
  • This is not based on a photo, but is a photo-realistic image of an AI-generated non-existent human. This is uncommon right now
  • The photo comes from a campaign calling for art. I think the license is in order, but this is not a typical upload only from the artist creator

Can someone with license review rights please process the "review needed" category on that image by following the instructions at Category:License review needed? Also please post here saying that you have done so, and with any thoughts. I want this documented before I upload more images from this collection. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that we do have {{PD-algorithm}} for images that are entirely generated by AI, but I don't think that is the case here. Nosferattus (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploads by Thebees1889 (talk · contribs)[edit]

These scans/photos of various 1910s and 1920s cigarette cards/postcards/etc are described as Thebees1889 (talk · contribs)'s own work and licensed as CC-BY-SA-4.0, but they are clearly not the author/copyright holder of the actual images so this license isn't appropriate. I suppose many of the images would be PD in the US as they were published pre-1927 but as these was published in the UK I think they need evidence that they have tried to locate the actual copyright holder(s) and that either they were unable, or the real authors died more than 70 years ago. Thought it was worth bringing here as there are quite a lot of them. BigDom (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:PD-UK-unknown should apply here for anonymous works made before 1952. Borysk5 (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, yeah I assume it would for most. But the question is whether the photographers are truly unknown, or simply that the uploader didn't bother to find out and instead claimed it as their own work? Because the descriptions don't give much information, e.g. cropped from "a postcard" or "a cigarette card", but which one, which brand? I'll leave a message on their talk page and see if they can provide any more information. BigDom (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portrait of Icelandic politisians[edit]

The Icelandic Parliament has a website with pictures of all the politicians that have a seat there. I was wondering if I could import them here. Their copyright notice is as follows (translated from Icelandic): Portrait photographs of members of parliament taken in 2016 and later are marked with the photographer and with the following text about permission to reproduce them: Reuse of this photograph is free to everyone, on the condition that the photographer's name appears where applicable. In addition, the author's right to honor must be respected so that reuse does not distort or change the author's work in such a way as to impair his authorship or uniqueness." link. Would this be enough to add them here? Steinninn ♨ 19:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My initial thought is that "the author's right to honor must be respected so that reuse does not distort or change the author's work in such a way as to impair his authorship or uniqueness" limits the ability to re-use for any purpose, making it non-free. But on the other hand it might be considered authors' moral rights which as a non-copyright restriction seems to be OK for Commons. -M.nelson (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vancouver Archives re-use[edit]

I'm interested in uploading this photo https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/m-s-john-macdonald from the City of Vancouver Archives which was taken by Walter E. Frost (whose photos were donated to the archives) and is still under copyright per COM:CANADA. The 'Rights area' section of that page states that the photo is "under copyright" and that the rights holder is the City of Vancouver (assumed to have been transferred to the city upon donation, which seems to happen per their donation policy).

The Archives' reproduction policy is at https://vancouver.ca/your-government/archives-reproduction-of-materials-policy.aspx and states 3.3 Use of materials whose copyrights are owned by the City of Vancouver: For materials whose copyrights are owned by the City of Vancouver, the Archives grants the patron a non-exclusive license to use the reproductions without restriction as to the nature or purpose of the use. and 3.7 Credits: Patrons must credit the "City of Vancouver Archives" and the material's item number, and the photographer (if known), for each use of materials.

Am I correct in interpreting this as something like an {{Attribution}} license, and it being allowed on Commons? -M.nelson (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who does the word "patrons" refer to? Borysk5 (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me to be a generic term for users or consumers of their material. There doesn't seem to be a formal patronage or membership program. There also are no policies (or restrictions) for non-patrons, though they do distinguish between reproductions done by patrons themselves vs reproductions done by the archives on behalf of patrons. -M.nelson (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Footer[edit]

Currently states "Files are available under licenses specified on their description page. All structured data from the file namespace is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License; all unstructured text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy." That is missleading. I think we should state that this only applies to structured data "labeled" as "structured data", e.g. categories, which are a structure, doesn't fall under this term. Therefore I propose to change from "All structured data" to "All data labeled as 'structured data'". Habitator terrae 🌍 21:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC) PS: Furthermore I worry whether bot copying of structured data could be a license violate, if e.g. a big database-work of metadata under CC BY-SA with its files was imported to commons and then all this metadata was automaticly copied - not collected - with a bot and claimed under its CC0-License.Reply[reply]

Indiana Government Illegal Copyright[edit]

Indiana law does not allow copyright, trademark, or royalties to be placed on government photos. Per Indiana Code 4-13-1-1: Indiana's public records law does not allow public agencies to place restrictions on public records: "that requires the public to obtain a license or pay copyright royalties for obtaining the right to inspect and copy the records". [8]https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2014/ic/

The photos I have uploaded should not be deleted as they were uploaded by and property of the Indiana government. Grahaml35 (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that the government website of Indiana's laws are geoblocked, preventing IPs from Germany to access them?! Since a lack of availability of the relevant laws makes working on Commons rather difficult, could somebody perhaps upload the "public records law" of Indiana to Wikisource (The law itself is public domain as an Edict of Government)? Felix QW (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indiana is classified as "yellow" by Harvard University's State Copyright Resource Center, which tends to be fairly reliable when it comes to this type of things. The Harvard site states basically the same as what you posted above about copyright royalties, but the very next sentence is as follows: "State agencies are, however, allowed to enact rules prohibiting the commercial use of public records." Since Commons doesn't not accept any types of licenses that place restrictions on commercial use, that would be one reason why such files cannot be uploaded to Commons. Another issue would be whether the files you uploaded were original creations by an employee of the State of Indiana as part of their official duties, or something created by a third-party. Even in the case of US government websites, images created by third-parties are often hosted by such websites and the copyright ownership of such content is still retained by its original creator absent any en:copyright transfer agreement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Grahaml35, Felix QW, and Marchjuly: The second use of "4-13-1-1" is near the top of "ARTICLE 13. ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT
OF STATE SERVICES, EMPLOYEES, PURCHASES,
AND PROPERTY" on page 477 of the 1,419 page 19,673 KB https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/a/f/5/a/af5a5d81/TITLE4_title4.pdf as archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20170215050654/https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/a/f/5/a/af5a5d81/TITLE4_title4.pdf , which can be viewed on the web at https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2014/ic/titles/004/articles/013/ . However, I can't find the quoted text from above there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Public records are not the same thing as copyright. The public has a right to inspect the records, and make copies of them for particular purposes, but does not grant the full scope of copyright (commercial copying, derivative works, etc.). The scope of fair use on public records would be greatly enlarged, but it's not the same thing as a copyright license which allows *all* use, which we require here. Per the Harvard site on state copyright, Indiana has nothing directly on-point, and is rated "yellow", which is realistically unknown. In general, we assume states can copyright their works if they so choose; the public records law simply says that the existence of a copyright cannot prevent the disclosure of public records (this is common among many states); it does not say that copyright does not exist. You can only use the copied records within the bounds of copyright fair use, which is not enough for a free license here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright infringement[edit]

Math920 is claiming authorship of several of the photos from my website www.pamirs.org. I have no objection to some of them being used, with appropriate recognition of my authorship. Others I request be withdrawn I Pamirsorg (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thank you for notifying us. I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tajik boy.jpg where I will add other photos uploaded by Math920 that could be found on your website back in 2009. De728631 (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Derivative works containing copyrighted land art/FoP clarification[edit]

Bit of a unique copyright/FoP question here. Per U.S. law, there is no freedom of panorama to photograph 2- or 3-dimensional copyrighted works of art, even if they are in a public place, aside from works of architecture. There are about half a dozen or more images on Commons of American artist Robert Smithson's (1938-1973) land art piece Spiral Jetty (1970), see: Category:Spiral Jetty. Per the executor of Smithson's estate, the Holt-Smithson Foundation, Spiral Jetty is still actively under copyright, owned by the Foundation, while the work itself is co-owned by the Foundation and the Dia Art Foundation. But several users uploading images of Spiral Jetty have claimed the work is in the public domain, or that land art is not covered by copyright. How should these images be handled? The courts have not been definitive in their assessment of copyright claims for land art, meaning it's a bit of a murky situation in terms of Wikimedia's obligations under the law, but I also feel like it's our obligation to defer to the more conservative interpretation when dealing with works of art. Any thoughts or takes on whether these images should be kept? There are many similar images freely licensed on Flickr and other sites that could be uploaded at lower sizes directly to Wikipedia to replace these images. 19h00s (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@19h00s: The law seems pretty clear that U.S. FoP only exempts "architectural works" that are embodied in "buildings". The term "building" means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary. So I don't think the FOP exemption would apply here. Then the question becomes is Spiral Jetty copyrighted? Leaving aside issues of originality, since Spiral Jetty was created in 1970, it would have required a visible copyright notice. In the absence of a copyright notice, it would have immediately fallen into the public domain upon publication (i.e. unrestricted public access). Thus it's probably safe to say that Spiral Jetty is public domain as it's very unlikely that it included a copyright notice. Nosferattus (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the executor of the artist's estate claims copyright, implying that there was a copyright notice, and even the owner of the work (Dia Art Foundation) also seems to be required to license images of the artwork as demonstrated on their own site. Smithson's copyright is licensed by the Artists Rights Society, also implying that there is some sort of legal basis for the ARS to take action against unlicensed images. 19h00s (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(should have done an extra search, but per the Utah Museum of Fine Arts, the work is in fact covered by copyright) 19h00s (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They may claim it, but it doesn't necessarily make it so. That may also be slyly worded; they could simply be referring to photographs that they take -- those are obviously copyrighted and need a license. Also, the specific contours are earthen, and can be changed by waves etc. -- that is not the type of thing the Copyright Office usually allows registrations for. The general shape of a spiral would not be enough to qualify for a copyright. It's possible the artist or estate never bothered to try and register the work, but are simply claiming copyright. I don't see a copyright notice in photos, and the SIRIS entry states that it is unsigned, so no copyright notice there. If they can show a valid copyright registration for the work as a sculpture, it may be different, but failing that I'd have to guess that it's not a registrable work in the first place (don't think the artist gets credit for the specific placement of each rock, as that can change) -- but rather just the general arrangement in a spiral, and doubt that familiar shape alone would be copyrightable. See the Copyright Compendium, in particular section 905. It's very cool due to the location and the scale, but those are not copyrightable aspects really. Second, if it was copyrightable, the lack of a copyright notice would have ended it right away. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lee Harvey Oswald arrested at the Texas Theatre, Dallas, Texas, 22 November 1963.jpg[edit]

Hi, Licensed as PD-USGov, but no author mentioned. Any idea? Yann (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: alamy.com attributes the subject photo to "Svintage Archive / Alamy Stock Photo". time.com attributes it to "Jim MacCammon, courtesy Howard Upchurch". Ad-laden nydailynews.com attribtutes it to HO/REUTERS. I am inclined to believe Jim MacCammon was the photographer, as one of perhaps multiple photographers gathered for a perpwalk, so probably not the US Government's work. Sourcing for the second photo is even murkier, again probably not the US Government's work.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article tells the story of the first photo. The photo was taken by freelance photographer Jim MacCammon. It was first published in Time magazine in February 1964. Time shared it with the FBI, which is how it made its way into the exhibits of the Warren Commission. Other than that, it wasn't published again until 2008.

So {{PD-USGov}} clearly does not apply. It's possible that it's {{PD-US-no notice}} from the publication by the Warren Commission, but probably not. It would have to have been an authorized publication, so we would have to assume both that Time gave the photo to the FBI with the understanding that they could publish it and that the terms between Time and MacCammon allowed them to relicense it to be published elsewhere.

As for the second photo, I found it here on the National Archives site, which lists it as coming from Record Group 272, which is the records of the Warren Commission. Perhaps someone can find a record in there that gives more information about where it came from. But {{PD-USGov}} seems unlikely. I would guess it was taken by some bystander along the motorcade route, who later gave it to the authorities. Toohool (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this research. I nominated both. Yann (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nagasawa Kanaye photo[edit]

Can I upload this photo [[9]] (this image: https://cdn-japantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/n-wineking-b-20171023.jpg )? It says "Kanae Nagasawa, one of the first Japanese immigrants to the U.S., is seen in this undated photo. | COURTESY OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF ICHIKIKUSHIKINO / VIA KYODO". Kanaye lived from 1852 till 1934. So I think it was published before 1927. In Japan it should be in the public domain, because it was photographed before January 1, 1947. There is a larger, but darker version 1024 x 1508 pixels 159 KB https://imengine.prod.srp.navigacloud.com/?uuid=1abd7c7a-681c-54ae-9de9-fdc9095a2d59&type=primary&q=72&width=1024 (in jfif format) from slide 3 of https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/photos-asian-americans-in-sonoma-county-who-made-history/?artslide=2 sourced to "Museum of Sonoma County" and the credit "courtesy of Byck Family" at https://globe.asahi.com/article/11846555 . - Artanisen (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggested asking here at User talk:Jeff G.#Nagasawa Kanaye photo.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using data licensed under {{Data license Germany-attribution-2.0}} in a Commons Map[edit]

Which license would a map like this get? The original map is licensed under a free license. Would the combined map list both licenses under each other, combine them with each other or use only the "Data license Germany"? Example Map: File:Durchschnittsalter Kreisebene 2020.svg

Similar situation but with a slightly different license that doesn't allow commercial use: File:Hantavirusinfektionen RKI 2012.svg is based on a Commons map and uses data from the en:Robert Koch Institute which is licensed under non commercial use only (https://survstat.rki.de/Content/Instruction/DataUsage.aspx). How would a map like this be licensed?

Does using licensed data to color a map even fall under the license? --Hi, future humans! (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hi, future humans! it often helps to read the actual license text, which is available here. The English version reads (my emphasis):

(1) Any use will be permitted provided it fulfils the requirements of this "Data licence Germany – attribution – Version 2.0".

The data and meta-data provided may, for commercial and non-commercial use, in particular

  1. be copied, printed, presented, altered, processed and transmitted to third parties;
  2. be merged with own data and with the data of others and be combined to form new and independent datasets;
  3. be integrated in internal and external business processes, products and applications in public and non-public electronic networks.

(2) The user must ensure that the source note contains the following information:

  1. the name of the provider,
  2. the annotation "Data licence Germany – attribution – Version 2.0" or "dl-de/by-2-0" referring to the licence text available at www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0, and
  3. a reference to the dataset (URI).

This applies only if the entity keeping the data provides the pieces of information 1-3 for the source note.
(3) Changes, editing, new designs or other amendments must be marked as such in the source note.

Our template is misleading, as it talks about "this work" rather than "the data used to create this work": As far as I understand, the license is primarily concerned about the data itself. For example, if you merge some of this data with your own data, you need to retain the information that this part of the data has this license. Similarly, if you use the data to make a figure, you need to make clear that the data you were using was available under this license. The license text does not say anything about figures or maps made from the data, nor would it make sense to use this license for anything but data. As far as I can tell, you just need to make sure to properly list your sources. Section (2) tells you how to do that. HOWEVER: IANAL, other views welcome. --El Grafo (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]