Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2011/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

File:New York Jets logo.svg - PD-textlogo?

I am not sure if en:File:New York Jets logo.svg (to be transferred to Commons - will be used in dewp) is really ineligible for copyright {{PD-textlogo}} because of the stylized white football in the middle. Thank you for opinions. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, the stylized football is copyrightable. I'd also argue it's not de minimis due to its central, prominent place in the composition. I'd like to see other opinions though. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It's borderline, but I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. Copyright Office didn't grant protection to it. File:Best Western logo.svg serves as a useful benchmark. In File:Best Western Logo.pdf, the Copyright Office explained that even when the graphic "crown/W" stylization is viewed as a crown (and not as a "W", which would clearly be non-copyrightable), the basic shape is too simple to be eligible for copyright. The basic representation of a football in the Jets logo would seem to have similar characteristics. Powers (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that it comes down to the football. It would not be de minimis if it was copyrightable. I really don't know... it is a pretty simple shape in the end, mostly an oval, but perhaps the way they did the interior section with the laces may be considered original. Really not sure... I don't have a strong opinion either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
From intuition alone, I would think this is a simple logo without much doubt, but it seems that sometimes things are not as simple as they seem. I still think it's too simple to be copyrightable, though.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png

Let's try VPC.. :)

I would like an opinion about File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png, the Disney logo for Hercules. It passed two DRs and was kept as textlogo, but it seems way too far fetched to deem such a creative image as textlogo. The background is complex, with the marks of erosion and the marble shades. I would like to know if the carving on the letters matters, as well. --- Darwin Ahoy! 16:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have my doubts about PD-textlogo as well. Without the texture of the background and the carving on the letters, it would be PD-textlogo for sure, but with them... I think it may just have a creative spark. I'd like to see others' opinions. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
While I'm not without some doubt, I tend towards the opposite conclusion. I don't see anything overt in the standard of creativity expressed here that would make this subject to copyright. I think it's not so different from Example 1 in 503.02(a) (Minimal standards: pictorial or graphic material) of Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, in which overlaying one non-copyrightable element over another did not result in a copyrightable work. --Avenue (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
But why both images wouldn't be covered by copyright? I would guess that both 3D carving of the letters and the background image have a fair degree of creativity.--- Darwin Ahoy! 04:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the background pattern in itself would necessarily be copyrightable, nor the "carved" letters (at least from "AND" onwards). But on second thought, the marks of erosion and the more complex "HERCULES" lettering probably push this over the edge. --Avenue (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree this is borderline, but it was kept twice at DR. It doesn't matter how complex the HERCULES lettering is; it's still lettering and still ineligible for copyright. Powers (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
There was almost no discussion at those DRs, that's why I thought it would be better to review it here before/instead of trying a third DR. I'm still confused with the question of the 3D effects on the letters, some people say it is enough to make a logo non simple, others say it doesn't matters at all.--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This is actually an example in Commons:Threshold of originality. For me, doesn't the answer depend on whether the font used was a pre-existing one? If a new font was created for the purpose, surely that's originality, even if it's text. Rd232 (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it doesn't matter if it's a new font, custom font, or old one. The shapes of letters are not copyrightable (at least in the U.S.). If there is texture or something on the letters not related to its shape, that could be an issue. Unless the background is a pre-existing texture from Photoshop or something, I'd have to guess that is copyrightable -- can't understand why it might not be, if done by hand. I would have leaned delete on this one, on the background alone, and possibly on the textures on the letters. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could clarify Commons:Threshold of originality a bit then. Rd232 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. The DUB logo and the New York Arrows logo are both examples of customized letters not mattering. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I mean those examples would be more helpful with a brief statement about the principles involved, from someone who understands them. Rd232 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah-ah! So it is about the texture of the letters. I think I finally start to understand how this works. But can you clarify this, Clindberg: If the letters had not texture, but were 3D shaped, could it be copyrightable?
About the background, I would guess it was indeed drawn by hand, even if a marble texture was used. The damage spots are not incidental and were clearly designed to pass that antique, eroded look to the plaque. They are not simple shapes.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

I found many of my images being sold on Amazon and Ebay.For example this image is sold on Amazon at Amazon.com for £4.99. This image is sold on ebay (scroll down). Could you please tell me, if this is legal. They did not attribute the images the way I did. In my attribution my images are linked to my web site. In theirs they are not. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Second one is now a dead link. The Amazon partner specified the author and license. This is all that is required. See Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia#CC-BY-SA. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Well they should specify the license and my name on every image they sell,aren't they? Besides if you are to look at the license of my image it clearly states:
"*attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", and I linked it to my web site.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think the attribution should be on each hard copy of the image that is sold. It's hard to tell from the Amazon website whether proper attribution is given in this manner. If the seller is not doing so, then you have every right to complain to the seller and request for proper attribution. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I assumed since it was on the page that they also printed it somewhere on the poster in fine print, or in the white margin around the poster. If they didn't they need to do that. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The plane in Spain falls mainly in the rain...

Actually I can't tell for sure this is Spain (can you?), but it is IB airlines which has its locations there. However, appreciate an opinion as to if there is any FOP issue or other rights problem with this photo that would interfere with using it to illustrate an en-WP Featured Article. Thanks!


TCO (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, both the plane and the airport building (hangar?) are non-copyrightable utilitarian structures. There's not even a logo painted on the plane. The logo on the building is both de minimis and itself probably too simple to copyright. Finally, there is FoP in Spain ({{FoP-Spain}}). I checked the Flickr source for license laundering and it appears to be an official photo from the Flickr account of Iberia Airlines, with several other such images in the same set with the same camera. I added a {{personality rights}} tag since it contains identifiable living people. This one is super safe. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of a harddrive

Moved fromCommons:Help desk#Photograph of a harddrive

Is the following image OK to upload under a free license? [1] I made it myself, it is a photograph of a harddrive with Kensington lock. --Bacon narwhal (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is your photograph, I see no problem at all with uploading it. If it hs been published before, however, I would suggest you to follow OTRS procedures to secure the permission grant.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't published. I only worry that the "K" logo or the Morse code on disk could classify this as derivative work. --Bacon narwhal (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't see any K logo, are you sure you pointed to the right image?--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It is the rotated lock icon with letter "K", in third row. --Bacon narwhal (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
We can't be talking about the same image. All I see is the backside of an electrical apparatus with two wires coming out.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The logo looks like this: [2] and it is visible on the apparatus, rotated 90 degrees, in third row from top. Maybe I'm too paranoid. --Bacon narwhal (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, now I see it! Yes, you are too paranoid. :) It is clearly de minimis there, and anyway would possibly qualify as a simple logo. You can upload that picture without concerns, as far as I know.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
None of the symbols on the back of that hard drive are copyrightable (the K lock icon, the USB icon, or the power button icon), and they'd still be de minimis even if they were. The Morse code pattern is just a standard representation of a very short piece of text, and so is not copyrightable. This image is just fine. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The "Morse code" doesn't even seem to parse into actual text, at least as far as I can tell. Powers (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Folklore art does not have copyright?

An admin has been closing DR's of derivative works in a place which has no freedom of panorama (France) stating that these works of art have no copyright as they are folkloric works of art even if the art was created within the last few years. Therefore, would I be correct in assuming that if an artist sculpted a statue of Robin Hood or King Arthur, place it in a square in France or the US that he or she would have no rights over it? I find this hard to believe. Can someone please correct me if I am wrong. --Grcampbell (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

One can't generalize about the copyright status of folklore – it depends on the country of origin. It may well be that France there is no copyright in folklore. However, even if that is the case, I am, like you, sceptical that a modern interpretation of a subject of traditional folklore is uncopyrightable. There were deletion discussions that took place some months back where a few editors tried to argue that any depiction of a Hindu deity is in the public domain since Hinduism has been around for thousands of years. This argument confuses the concept behind the depictions of these deities (their traditional attributes, for example) and the expression of the depictions. The latter is certainly copyrightable. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Links to the relevant DRs would help inform discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the links: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ham (13 mai 2007) cavalcade 017.jpg. This sculpture was created recently. --Grcampbell (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case I would count it as folklore, yes. In the case of the Hindu deities I think it is as preposterous as claiming that an hypothetical painting of the Virgin Mary by Salvador Dali would be out of copyright because the subject has been around for thousand of years. The same for the beautiful art noveau John Duncan paintings of Celtic deities recently deleted. It makes no sense. Folklore should apply only to popular expression, like the parade you linked above, and even then it has to be seen in a case by case basis. I doubt very much that the Rosa Ramalho sculptures, which are considered by many the utter expression of Portuguese folklore, are out of copyright.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
IMO there is no copyright if the recreation is in the same form as the original creation which is the case for these giant puppets. For Hindu paintings, the question is "does an Indian court would grant a copyright to the recreation of this religious drawing?" I don't think so, especially if the painting is not signed. Yann (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what is the "original creation" in the case of "File:Ham (13 mai 2007) cavalcade 017.jpg"? Is there any evidence that the modern effigy is exactly the same as the "original creation"? As for modern paintings of Hindu deities, I'd also like to see some evidence that an Indian court has actually ruled that such paintings are not copyrightable. Indian copyright law is similar to UK copyright law, and even anonymous works are protected by copyright. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. For example, see fr:Florimond Long Minton, [3], [4] (see "historique"). Yann (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
In none of the examples given have you demonstrated what JackLee requested. Can you demonstrate evidence that the modern effigy is exactly the same as the "original creation"? In no DR that you have recently closed have you demonstrated this. Indeed, in some of the cases that you closed, there was no effigy before the one pictured in the DR. --Grcampbell (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the links above? In short, it explains that the actual effigy is a recreation of an original created in the 1930s. Yann (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question asked. Are the effigies exactly the same. Moreover, and I will repeat this, in some of the DR's there was no effigy before the one that was pictured in the DR. You did not do due diligence during your closing. --Grcampbell (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I always find these questions confusing, or maybe more correctly, so far unanswered. (I also read the French language links above.) Commons:Image casebook#Costumes and cosplay states that there "is not yet consensus around whether photographs of a person wearing a costume are permitted." It then lists several agreed upon points, none of which exactly applies to this case. To me the Ham images fit neither "the costume is a completely original design" nor "the costume is an accurate representation of a character whose design is released under a free license or in the public domain", but falls between the two. The part that made sense to me was Mike Godwin's stated opinion, but that does not appear to be the Commons consensus. Finally, folklore is too briefly discussed at Commons:Image casebook#Folklore and Tradition, is there more somewhere else? -84user (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
We are discussing effigies, not costumes. Therefore, information in the image casebook about costumes and cosplay is not relevant here. Effigies must be treated like sculptures. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no proof of that. That's the point. Effigies are definitely not sculptures. There is absolutely no reason they should be treated in the same way. Yann (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying that effigies are sculptures. What I mean is that effigies are not costumes, so any special exemptions applicable to clothes and costumes do not apply. Effigies are artistic works like sculptures and paintings, and so must be treated as such. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It does have a copyright, If its have an author its protected by law...'Folklore' is not exempted from copyright, Its coming under art..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
That's wrong too. There are specific copyright exemptions for folklore in many legislations. Yann (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you show us the French legislation or case law (as these were taken in France) ? I read article 122-5 of the code de la propriété intellectuelle and found no mention of folklore, but I am not a lawyer so maybe there is... --Grcampbell (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the official English translation of the French Intellectual Property Code and did not see any exemptions from copyright protection for folklore. That means a modern artwork is probably only free of copyright if it is identical to an artwork already in public domain. (I say "probably" because it is possible that French law recognizes that a person gains copyright in an artwork that is a copy of a public domain work if he or she exerts substantial effort in creating the copy.) There should be some reliable evidence of what the public-domain artwork looked like – a written assertion that a modern effigy is a "recreation" of an old one may not be sufficient, as it is not clear whether the modern effigy is identical to the old effigy or not. In the case mentioned above, since we do not know whether the creator(s) of the original 1930s effigy are still alive, we can't tell if the original effigy is in the public domain. In France, copyright lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the creator died. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
French case law about folklore is very scarce, but it is generally accepted in French law doctrine that folklore art is indeed exempt from copyright, or at least should be considered as anonymous works, whose copyright ends 70 years after first publication. This applies mainly to costumes and some graphical representations, but also to music (I know of one case about a drinking song). I can provide references if needed. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The french cases about Folklore are based on 2 facts : is it contemporary folklore (too recent to made the element forming it part of public domain : usually meaning something around 70 or 100 y. o.) ? is there expression of creativity from the author(s) using element from the folkore (even for collective work). In the case that interest us, I'm not sure that we can assume that those effigies are not part of contemporary folklore and that there is no expression of creativity. Based on those two aspects, I can't think that we can say that we are allowed to host those images without proper authorization. Loreleil (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jastrow. Yes, could you please provide the references, and perhaps update "Commons:Licensing#France" and "Commons:Image casebook#Folklore and Tradition"? — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
From Christophe Caron, Droit d'auteur et droits voisins (Copyright and Neighbouring Rights), Litec 2006: ‘Very often have works of folklore unknown authors. When it is the case, the creation belongs to the category of communal things as set out by art.714 of the Civil Code: they do not belong to anyone, and their use is common to all’ (§ 45). Also: ‘Folk [traditional] music has some claims for protection: they often manifest the creation of an original form. In most cases, however, the authors of these works passed from generation to generation are unknown. There is much difficulty in establishing proof of potential authorship, as can be seen in the case of a man who claimed to have written the song ‘Boire un petit coup c'est agréable’ [a drinking song]: his claims were denied. This kind of works does not tolerate well private appropriation. These creations are often considered as communal things, made by a great number of successive anonymous authors, not belonging to anyone, but common to all. To sum it up, the adaptation of a work of folklore, more than the work itself, may give rise to copyright protection. Such is the case when a work of folklore is adapted to create a new work’ (§142).
Pierre-Yves Gautier in Propriété littéraire et artistique (Literary and Artistic Property), PUF 2010 is more nuanced: folklore or works of traditional cultures (music, dance, clothes) can be protected when they are improvisations after old forms, drawings or designs [the author may allude here to industrial design right, which is distinct from copyright]. Limits need however to be traced with the public domain, as works of folklore can be based on several centuries or even millenniums of tradition [the author does not specify how we may trace those limits]. A solution would be to consider these works as anonymous; the period of protection would run from the moment they are published and made accessible to the public. If the variation/adaptation is important enough, the work would be considered as an original work.
Stéphanie Choisy in Le Domaine public en droit d'auteur (The Public Domain in Copyright Law) Litec 2010 also considers that works of folklore are anonymous or pseudonymous works, protected by copyright from the moment they are made public (outside of the group that created them), and lapsing into the public domain after the period of protection expires. They can be protected as original works if they exhibit enough creativity compared to the original work of folklore.
The first two works I mentioned are handbooks about copyright law; the third one is a published PhD thesis. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your printing those extracts. Now, if we apply this to the example I gave above. There was no effigy of Berthoult (the name of the giant) before 2000 (this was built in 2000). An association got together and built this in 2000 after much research. The head alone took 200 hours to complete. Could this effigy be protected as an original work as it shows that it exhibits enough creativity? We cannot compare it directly to a preceeding original work as there was no other movable effigy built for this character, however, other folklore characters have had movable effigies representing their respective characters - like the Macy's parade. There are examples where a new effigy has been built to replace one which was too old, too big or was damaged [5] --Grcampbell (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Jan Wellens de Cock Calvary.jpg

With the wooden frame of the triptych etc. that photograph is not exactly “a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art”, is it? So why is it tagged as such? There seems to be a bit too much of 3D for that. Or do I miss something? --Rosenzweig δ 17:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right. In those cases, when it's not a photo of mine, I generally crop the painting parts and mount them in a manner similar to the initial disposition. As it stands now it's a 3D work of art, indeed.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm not very adept at image manipulations like that. Could someone do such a cropping and re-upload? Otherwise it seems we'll have to delete the image. --Rosenzweig δ 10:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a genius on that as well, but I'll do it as a last resort to save the file. Maybe someone in the Graphic VP can help?--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I've asked at the Photography workshop. --Rosenzweig δ 16:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm the copyrightholder but not the author

Moved from Commons:Help desk#I'm the copyrightholder but not the author

I want to upload pictures from paintings. I'm working for the association that has the copyright on the artist's work but I don't figure out which option I should choose when I upload a picture. Can you please help me? Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yvonneguegan (talk • contribs)

I would use the own work one to get it uploaded. Once page is created, go back in and edit it manually to add these details so we know the exact situation. Just type in the words. Someone will come by to clean up, if you had it in the wrong section or need some fancy template thingie. TCO (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There is the option "none, will be deleted if not specified" (or similar) on the form I use. By using that one there is no wrong template anywhere in the file history and you should have one week time to manually add the facts. --LPfi (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of the "own work" tags really specify the copyright owner, as that is the only person/entity who has the right to license things in the first place. I think "own work" is just a convenience for the most typical situation; a copyright owner putting a CC-BY-SA tag on it (for example; whatever license they want) *is* the correct template, so they may as well use that section of the upload page. But yes, adding the information on copyright transfer or other ownership details will be a big help, and email to COM:OTRS could also help in case any questions come up later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos in newspapers

In general, what is the copyright status of photographs published in newspapers after 1923, and before 1989? Commons:Licensing#United_States states that "anything published before March 1, 1989 with no copyright notice ("©", "Copyright" or "Copr.") plus the year of publication (may be omitted in some cases) plus the copyright owner (or pseudonym) is in the public domain," which leads me to believe that such photos are PD, so long as there's no copyright asserted. That doesn't seem quite right, however, as the newspaper may or may not be the copyright holder. Or is that immaterial?

For a specific example, look at the photo at the top of the page here of James and Frank Couzens. This is a photo from the Spartansburg SC Herald dated 1935, and asserts neither copyright nor ownership. PD? As a more complex example, see this photo of John W. Smith. It's from the Windsor Daily Mail dated 1942, and similarly asserts neither copyright nor ownership. The wrinkle here is that Windsor is in Canada, and Commons:Licensing#Canada states that "all photographs taken before 1 January, 1949 are in the public domain." However, there's no way of knowing who took the photo, nor where it was taken (John W. Smith was mayor of Detroit, across the river from Windsor). So is the photo PD? Under Canadian or US practice, or is that moot?

Thanks for any help. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A single copyright notice in the newspaper was enough to cover all works (other than advertisements in particular) in the newspaper, including all photos. They did not need separate notices (but could have them). If you do not see one... then yes, anything original to that newspaper should be PD, though I would have thought that was odd to omit that, even in that era. If they are third party items, it may get dicier, but they were supposed to ensure that all copies had a notice. If the contract between them and the paper specified to have a copyright notice, but the paper failed to include one, that may be enough to save the copyright on the individual items (though innocent re-users would have little to no penalties for doing so). Newspapers published before 1964 needed to have their copyright explicitly renewed; there is a list here of when the first renewed issue is for a number of periodicals. In particular, when it comes to newspapers, I think those researchers found out that no newspaper outside of New York City renewed issues prior to 1945. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and some other New York papers did start renewing at some point before that. Photographs and articles could technically be renewed separately from the newspaper -- for example, if there was a syndicated comic or something like that present in the newspaper, it is likely that the comic itself got renewed even if the paper itself did not. Similarly, be careful with photographs obtained from AP or similar companies -- those could well have separate renewals. So... for the above examples... the Spartansburg paper would not have been renewed even if there was a copyright notice. So, it would seem most likely that works original to that newspaper are now OK. Not entirely sure that photo was original to that newspaper though (would probably be odd for a South Carolina newspaper). It does look like there is some photographer's mark in the bottom right, hm. As for the second, yes, Windsor is in Canada and thus did not have to have notices, renewals, and all that (at least for protection inside Canada), so the above discussion is mostly moot (if Canadian stuff *did* have the notices, then they got U.S. protection too). The U.S. restored many foreign copyrights so to retroactive remove the requirement for notices on foreign works, but that only occurred if the work was still under protection in the source country -- in this case, if it was a Canadian photograph, it would have expired in Canada before 1996 (the date of restoration) and therefore would not have been restored. But yes, if that is the Detroit mayor, that is most likely a U.S. photograph. Given the odds, it is probably in fact PD, but we prefer some actual evidence of that (more than just banking on the odds), and a foreign newspaper probably isn't very good as evidence, though even an American photographer should have known to ask for a copyright notice on foreign publications if they wanted to retain copyright, so it may be telling enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Three illustrions by Eugene Lanceray

See [6] here. Apparently his work from before 1917 is in the public domain. I would like to upload two or three of his illustrions for the novel en:Hadji Murat (novel) shown on this website: [7]. The page is in russian but readable with google translate. It says (also on other sites) he worked on these illustrations from 1912 to 1915. Does it matter when they were first published? Because I don't know when that was, but it may have been 1918. Machinarium (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how {{PD-RusEmpire}} works, which does say it depends on the publication date. I don't think {{PD-Russia-2008}} can apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos published in UK before 1st June 1957

I have just come across the following Transitional provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Schedule 1[8]:

(2) Copyright in the following descriptions of work continues to subsist until the date on which it would have expired under the 1956 Act—
...
(c) published photographs and photographs taken before 1st June 1957;

— thereby leaving in force the Copyright Act 1956, Section 3(4) [9]:

(b) the copyright in a photograph shall continue to subsist until the end of the period of fifty years from the end of the calendar year in which the photograph is first published, and shall then expire.

Therefore (by now) all photos published in UK before 1st June 1957 are in the Public Domain in the UK. Nothing to do with Crown Copyright, or with the death date of the author, or even needing to try to identify said author. Is this a correct reading? I can't find any explicit statement on any of the wiki copyright pages and I have had photos published 1940-46 deleted from Commons on the grounds that "UK copyright expires 70 years after" death (or publication if anonymous). I also can't find any relevant license template.

What effect does this have on US copyright? Would it be true that a photo first published in the UK before 31 Dec 1945, and therefore in the UK Public Domain before the URAA date of Jan 1, 1996, is necessarily PD-US - or is it necessary to enquire into dates of first publication is the US? (not easy for odd photographs)--Keith Edkins (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to EU regulations, the UK later passed a law which retroactively restored copyrights on most works to the full 70 pma (see here). That overrides the transitional provision above, and in addition that extension took place on January 1, 1996 itself, so that is the term which must be used for URAA purposes. The above extension did not affect Crown Copyright works, so those special terms for photographs etc. remain in effect. There were some European countries which only extended their terms after the URAA date, so the original shorter terms would be used for URAA determinations, but the UK is not one of them -- the term was the full 70 pma on the URAA date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Carl. The 1995 regulations confound the issue by putting it like this:
16. The new provisions relating to duration of copyright apply-
(a) to copyright works made after commencement;
(b) to existing works which first qualify for copyright protection after commencement;
(c) to existing copyright works, subject to Regulation 15 (general saving for any longer period applicable under 1988 provisions); and
(d) to existing works in which copyright expired before 31st December 1995 but which were on 1st July 1995 protected in another EEA state under legislation relating to copyright or related rights.
— so current UK law now depends on the laws of 17 other countries 16 years ago (nothing complicated about that, then!) No doubt at least one of these was already 70 pma by 1995. I will add a note to the Wikipedia article on the 1988 Act.--Keith Edkins (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, the EU directive was basically worded that way I think -- they use the rule of the longer term within Europe. The basic effect was to move everything to 70 pma, really, as there were multiple countries already with that term (or longer). Countries complying with the EU directive had to make retroactive changes, such that EU countries are now all 70 pma, regardless of what was there before. Some countries were already 70 pma by that time, but some did not increase their terms until after the URAA date and others extended to 70 before but only made the change retroactive later, creating some interesting URAA situations, but the UK is one which extended everything beforehand. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Group sex (6).jpg

I have no desire to censor Wikimedia commons/Wikipedia at all. In fact, if this image can be confirmed, it helpfully illustrates the article on group sex. However, I find the image (and other images uploaded by the same user) of dubious origin. The participants seem too professional and the lighting too. (On the fair side though, I do my own best to provide images as professional as possible when uploading my own images.) Further, the image claims the participants as Japanese, and yet no description is written in Japanese. Further, the images were not added to the Japanese Wikipedia by the user. I am just dubious of these images being licensed correctly. I have left a note on the user's page, and to be fair I could not find these images in an image search. Nesnad (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick search found the images here (NSFW, though linked to the chaste first picture in series). Smaller resolution than the ones uploaded here, but they do have some watermark in Japanese on them. I'd have to guess they are commercial and available somewhere. These are the user's only uploads (plus three the user asked to be deleted). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, as expected, these are maybe copyvio. Well, I suppose it's possible that the original photographer uploaded them. I would like to hear from the uploadeder, but I am thinking this is a vopyvio. The watermark in the images you linked to is also fairly famous (at least over here) so it's not like a personal watermark or anything either. Hmm. Guess someone else is going to have to provide the group sex pictures, because these ones look unusable. I am still curious what the uploader will say, maybe she/he didn't know you couldn't uploaded copyrighted materiel from other people? PS. Did you just find those matching images on a keyword search or is there an image-based search function I am missing out on when trying to find copyvios? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If there is proof they were published before, but you suspect they may have been uploaded by the copyright holder, you can simply tag them with no permission and leave them to their fate.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If that's a well-known company, we should probably have OTRS permission from them in order to keep the images. Without that, I'd say it appears they are here without permission. Hard to imagine the company not having exclusive rights on the photos, letting the photographer do what they wanted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Per Nesnad, most interesting is that File:Group sex (3).jpg has a few px cropped from the bottom - exactly that part with the watermark [10]. Most likely the uploader just grabbed them from an external source, e.g. a paysite with the highres files. A photographer or an original publisher will not need (or not want) to crop watermarks from their files. --Martin H. (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Further note: We have a vandal here creating throw-away-accounts for pushing unfree files to Commons. Somengo (talk · contribs), Caleskeyep (talk · contribs), Mturba (talk · contribs), Erongick (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets. --Martin H. (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

India Press Information Bureau images

Does this pib.nic.in/newsite/terms.aspx#copyright policy fit within our license policy? Also, looking through some of the images I don't know how to differentiate between their content and third party content, so any pointers would be helpful. (If this is the wrong forum to ask this question, feel free to let me know or move the question). cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't meet the criteria for free content. They don't permit derivative works (in fact, the "must be reproduced accurately" clause seems to explicitly forbid it), and they restrict the ways in which re-users can use the content ("not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context"). --Carnildo (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, that was my concern, but I've seen these images used here and on en.wiki with that license as PD so figured I'd ask. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Simple (or not) logos

Can we keep File:ЖФКЦЗВ.png as simple geometrical shapes (PD-Ineligible)? Or is it too elaborate for that? --Rosenzweig δ 13:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The same question for File:Logik-logo.png. --Rosenzweig δ 13:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In those cases it is best to open a regular DR, I've done it for the one that was marked as a copyvio. I can't answer your questions, however, as I myself have the same doubts.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mugshots

Is there a list somewhere of jurisdictions where mugshots are public domain? I know Los Angeles, Florida, and the US federal government. Any others? Thanks. --UserB (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some I am wondering about that are tagged as PD:
  • File:Nick Carter mugshot.jpg - claims that "Mugshot released by the Huntington Beach City (California) Jail, which, according to California public records laws, is also by default to the public domain."
  • en:File:Raymond Vanessa Jackson Mugshots.jpg - claims that "Booking photographs (mugshots) released by the police in New Jersey are in the Public Domain"
  • File:Justin Volpe.jpg - claims that "Booking photographs (mugshots) released by the New York Police Department are in the Public Domain"
Any thoughts? --UserB (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll disagree on New York; see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Sid_Vicious_NY_Mug_Shot.png. There is apparently a proposed law which would change things, but I have no clue on its prospects of actually becoming law. New Jersey no idea, but in general states do have the right to own copyright, so I'd be doubtful of that one too. We do have {{PD-FLGov}} and {{PD-CAGov}}, so those could apply. Also, U.S. mugshots before March 1, 1989 stand a rather good chance of being published without a copyright notice, though that is likely hard to prove. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In Germany, mugshots are considered as Lichtbild (simple photograph), with only a short period of protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

de:Musik-PD

sind dateien mit den vorlagen de:Vorlage:Musik-PD (Darbietung) oder de:Vorlage:Musik-PD (Werk) geeignet für commons? --Akkakk (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wenn beides zutrifft, dann ja. Wenn also sowohl das musikalische Werk selbst gemeinfrei (PD) ist (weil der Komponist vor mehr als 70 Jahren verstorben ist - ist sein Tod noch nicht wesentlich länger her, kann es wegen der Rechtslage in den USA Komplikationen geben, siehe Template:Not-PD-US-URAA und Template:Not-PD-US-old-70) als auch die Interpretation (oder wenn das Werk gemeinfrei ist und die Interpretation unter einer freien Lizenz steht - oder wenn beides zwar nicht gemeinfrei ist, aber unter einer freien Lizenz....). Ein Werk von Mozart (Werk gemeinfrei), gespielt von einem Interpreten, der seine Interpretation unter eine freie Lizenz gestellt hat, geht beispielsweise. Ein Werk von Mozart ohne freie Lizenz für die Interpretation geht weder hier noch in der deutschen WP, ausser die Schutzfrist für die Darbietung ist abgelaufen. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
danke. --Akkakk (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

snippet of a newspaper OK?

Would this be OK? It's a pretty short amount of text and a headline. [11] TCO (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded it. Let's see...TCO (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Need one of the admins to move it too, please (put a request at top)TCO (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Ummm, not sure if I'm quibbling here, but the photograph is not exactly a two-dimensional reproduction of a two-dimensional object (a newspaper) such as a scan. It is actually a photograph of a newspaper taken at an angle. That being the case, since you did not take the photograph yourself, I think you might need the photographer's consent. Apart from that, I think the headline and text are probably short enough for {{PD-ineligible}} to apply. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It only takes a crop to turn it into a 2D representation, however.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This is going off topic a bit, but I've always wondered how much manipulation of this sort is permissible. I suppose a simple crop might not pose a problem, but should the image be deskewed as well? I think we all accept that if an artwork is painted on to a three-dimensional surface (say, a curved wall or a vase), a photograph of it can't be uploaded unless the photographer's permission is obtained. If that is the case, then is it acceptable to use a graphics software program and flatten out the image, and then declare it to be a free two-dimensional representation? Such reasoning seems a bit dubious to me. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I have had an angle get accepted before. [12] Happened while I was out being perma-banned for trolling for a couple years.TCO (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Besides...for the newspaper, I will argue it is not a very arty angle.  ;)TCO (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm with you there. The issue as I see it, though, is that US law doesn't require the angle chosen to be "artistic" (this would be endlessly debatable). So long as there is some substantive choice of angle or lighting, that is sufficient creativity for the photograph to be copyrightable. I suppose it could be argued in this case, though, that the deviation from the perpendicular is so slight as to be de minimis. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

sh.....TCO (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Jacklee, relating to your question, my impression is that flattening an initially 3D work wouldn't turn it into a 2D work, but rather on something like derivative of the 3D work, and therefore the copyright would still apply. In this case, however, it is indeed a 2D object that is being photographed, therefore I don't believe there is any issue in perspective correcting it. We do this stuff all the time, see the topic above about the triptic, for instance.--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I accept your analysis of the issue, but what constitutes an object that is originally two-dimensional? In my view, if a painting is made on a three-dimensional surface (for example, the inside of a dome or the outside of a vase), it is not right to regard that as essentially a two-dimensional artwork. The fact remains that the photographer has used a certain amount of effort to select a point of view and/or lighting conditions to capture the artwork. I think the same might apply to what is essentially a flat artwork that is positioned in a way that makes it impossible to take a photograph from perpendicularly above or in front of it. Let's say a scroll is in a glass case but because of the way it is lit, taking a photograph from above is not feasible because a reflection of the photographer would be captured. As a result, the only way to properly photograph the scroll is from an angle, and the photographer therefore uses some modicum of skill to select that angle to avoid a reflection. I think it might not be appropriate to then say, "Well, this is really a two-dimensional work," and then use a software program to deskew it. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If one file is...

Quick question. I have this user who uploaded three photographs, all of which look too professional to have been taken by the uploader. Their small pixel sizes, lack of metadata, and overall style are what make me suspicious. One, File:Dahlgren Chapel (Georgetown University).jpg, I can show was uploaded elsewhere online in 2008 and 2009 using a search on TinEye and Archive.org. Should I nominate it for deletion based on that? Its possible that the photographer released rights prior to 2008, and that could explain why the image appears elsewhere, but there is no source for the image that would confirm this. The other two, File:Healy Hall of Georgetown University.jpg and File:Lauinger Library(Georgetown University).jpg, don't turn up in a search, but are they tainted if the other is proven to be copyrighted?-- Patrick, oѺ 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1, obviously (C) by Georgetown University, why should they publish files they not own on their official flickr. Posted to flickr July 6, 2010, maybe published elsewhere before. 2 has been published on June 29, 2010 and is dated to spring 2010, appears to be the first provenance of the file, the size is smaller but our version looks upscaled/blurry - evidence of permission from the original publisher required. 3 of July 2010, the author is named correctly, permission required. Additional doubt comes from the purpose of the account to upload files only while the image inclusion comes from en:User:Misc11, but you found out this connection already at en:User talk:Misc11. Its very questionable why a user must create a separate account to upload files.... --Martin H. (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into those! How'd you find the sources so quickly? What's the protocol, should I list them for deletion? Maybe together? Or is there a template I should post to image page requesting evidence of permission?-- Patrick, oѺ 19:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you already dealt with the images. I found them using google similiartiy search of Special:Preferences#preftab-8/Maintenance tools (GoogleImages tab Gadget), very powerful tool but carefully check if the external source is the source or just a reuser of Wikipedia content. --Martin H. (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check out that gadget!-- Patrick, oѺ 14:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem with images wrongly attributed to Agência Brasil

Hello. I recently detected a lot of images which have been uploaded to Commons wrongly attributed to Agência Brasil. Example: File:Costa e Silva.jpg. Part of them were grabbed from the Planalto (Brazilian Federal Government) website, specifically from this gallery. The images were uploaded with the Agência Brasil attribution under the rational that that entity is the successor of the former news agencies owned by the Government. This is wrong in many accounts. First, the images were not produced by Agência Brasil, an entity which only exists since the 1990s, with uncertain year of creation. Second, the images were not released in the Agência Brasil website, and therefore the CC-BY-SA license used there cannot apply. Third, it is not clear at all that Agência Brasil is the copyright holder of those images, since I couldn't find any documentation even hinting that it could be the case. In fact, from wht I could understood, the previous copyright holder was extinguished and his assets were merged in another enterprise, from which Agência Brasil later sprung out as a new entity. It is not clear, however, if Agência Brasil inherited anything at all from the former entity, and in fact their materials were moved into the National Archives, which is now the guardian of the material produced by those former news agencies. I have written Agência Brasil to clarify at least some of those points, but have not had an answer yet,

What I would like here, besides reporting this issue with those licenses, is an opinion if those materials are covered by {{PD-BrazilGov}}, and therefore not subject to copyright. Some context: In the 1930s Getúlio Vargas (then Brazilian president) created Agência Nacional, with the purpose of documenting and publicizing government activities in materials which would be handed out free of costs ("grátis"). In 1979 that entity was legally succeeded by decree by Empresa Brasileira de Notícias, created as a public enterprise, which was then placed under the Ministry of Justice. This situation lasted until 1988, when EBN was extinguished and its assets merged in Radiobrás. Since the materials were explicitly commissioned by the Federal Government, I suppose they are now public domain, at least all those produced before 1983. Can you confirm this is the case? If it is indeed, I believe a new license should be made specifically for the materials produced by AN/EBN until 1983, adapted from {{PD-BrazilGov}}. Please comment.--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The ABr tag is wrong, obviously. The tag claims that the file is from a CC licensed source, the file is not from that source. I not understand why ABr was added to so many files e.g. here, maybe that user can explain what he did. Some files from that gallerie are pd-br-media, maybe {{Attribution-PresidenciaBr}} is applicable. --Martin H. (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The reasoning for TonnyJeff behaviour is explained here. This reasoning, used by all others who supported the keeping of the file, is completely faulty, as shown above. Agência Brasil is not the new name of Agência Nacional, it's a distinct entity created anew in the 1990s under unclear circumstances. Even if some of those images were actually authored by Agência Brasil, if they were not released in the AB website the CC license would not apply, since AB would still retain the copyright (and they have been very clear about this in the past). I don't know if {{Attribution-PresidenciaBr}} applies to all of them, but it certainly is better than the AB erroneous license that is there now at the moment.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I just wrote template:PD-German logos

Because of the discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo der Nymphenburger Gespräche.png, I just wrote template:PD-German logos. Any comments? I will also inform the German-language village pump. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds a bit as though the logo is not protected because it is a Gebrauchsgrafik; I also don't think we have to introduce a term ("Kleine Münze") unknown to most people (particularly outside Germany). It might be better to try something like "Dieses Logo ist durch das deutsche Urheberrechtsgesetz nicht geschützt, weil es nicht die erforderliche Schöpfungshöhe erreicht. Da es sich um ein Werk der angewandten Kunst handelt, sind die Schutzvoraussetzungen höher als bei den meisten anderen Werken." —Pill (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not see why we need a new template. {{PD-textlogo}} is sufficient as US copyright matters, too. German threshold of originality might be a bit higher than US' but this consideration would only be needed for old logos which are already PD in the US?! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Saibo, I've modified the template to indicate that it doesn't indicate why the work is PD in the US and you need another template for that. I honestly can't imagine a case where this template would be useful, however. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Commons applies local rules for FOP, for stamps, for copyright terms, and also for the threshold of originality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh really? No, not really - please read the intro section of COM:L. FOP: yes, stamps: could be, but surely not for copyright terms - at least not officially. Officially PD-old-70 is not enough for artwork by Germans to be on Commons. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to add some relevant explanation to Commons:Threshold of originality? Rd232 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I would prefer if there was something different from {{textlogo}} to mark the German logos with, since the threshold of originality seems to be much more liberal there. It would avoid misinterpretations, as many of those logos would possibly not be allowed if they were from the US or other countries.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The German threshold for originality is much higher, but since we must comply with U.S. law on Commons and it has a much narrower standard this template should not be used and preferably be immediately removed. Stuff that would fall under this template but is not allowed on the Commons can be uploaded to the local wiki - everything else that is permissable here is already covered under the available templates. Hekerui (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, back to the DR saga, then. :\ --- Darwin Ahoy! 17:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suggest to delete the template, as it is mostly not compatible with commons terms. We need all files to be legal both in the country of origin and in the US as host country for our servers. This template only covers Germany, but does not address the issue in the US. There might be a small intersecting set of files that are below the German threshold of originality and PD-old in the US, but I don't see why we would need a new template for those. And I warn against the use because of a huge possibilty of mistakes in the use of this template, because it can't stand alone, something many users will not understand. --h-stt !? 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump#Revisiting the costume issue

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Please read and comment on Commons:Village pump#Revisiting the costume issue. It is about a policy change(?) for "photos of cosplayers and other people wearing costumes of non-free copyrighted characters". --Saibo (Δ) 01:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

street signs and memorial signs

I am wondering what copyright rule allows uploading pictures like this and this, assuming the photographer uploaded them and gave his consent, but did not get consent from the writer of the text or teh creator of the graphics of the sign? יעקב (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The first is a copyvio and I have deleted it, the second is fine as the name (and its translations) are not copyrightable. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answer, and I apologize that this is going to be long. i have been thinking this through for quite a while. Wikimedia probably has thousands of public signs as the one you just erased. see here and the category (just as an example: Category:Plaques in Austria (most of the signs have very little text and should be OK, some are old and probably OK, but others are neither).
as to the street sign, you cnvinced me about the text, and I assume that is the answer even if there is a single sentence explanation about the name. But what about the design? is it protected if it is fancy? יעקב (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The first one could have been ok except that Freedom of Panorama in Denmark is restricted to buildings only, not to 2D works. That's the main arbiter with regards to signs. However, sufficiently simple ones can be public domain simply for being simple. However, some fancy text (eg not a standard font) can be copyrightable. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Errrm... not so much, at least in the U.S. -- fancy fonts don't matter. If there was a pictorial element on the sign, that does get dicier depending on the photograph, but text-only signs I would not delete. Pictorial ones... as a practical matter (they are presumably government works) there should be no issue with photographs of them, but technical readings of copyright law make it them harder to defend as being "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Upload Wizard - Free Art License

moved from Commons:Village_pump#Editing_the_Upload_Wizard --Saibo (Δ) 01:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
appreciation: Thanks for moving this forward. See Commons:Prototype_upload_wizard_feedback#FAL. I regreatbaly concur with your(?) impression below that 95.37454% of all FAL images uploaded with UW have problems. It is anoying to see all that bad uploads every day, and the reason is obviously that people got it wrong that "miscellaneous reasons" is not a way for everything and a circumvention but also a free license granted by the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Re Commons_talk:Licensing#Free_Art_License.3F - does anyone know how to get changes made to the Upload Wizard? I get it's an extension (mw:Extension:UploadWizard), developed as part of the Usability Initiative (cf [13]), but I can't see anything about how to change the Wizard structure. Maybe only the developers can? Rd232 (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh - there was a discussion about the FAL problem? I didn't notice it. VPC would have been better. ;) You cannot change the UW. I guess you need to ask User:NeilK. Darwin and I discussed with Neil already in chat (e.g. on 29th June) that we need to do something about FAL. Maybe Neil has already something in the pipeline. I have pinged him in Chat and will direct him to this thread.
What do you want to do? Remove it? I am not sure if this is a good idea: At least, the FAL makes catching those wrong license files easy. Just do a catscan for UW and FAL and exclude already tagged files. If we remove it people will probably select something different. I do not know a solution as of now. The problem is that it is simply too easy to upload. ;) And too easy to not make wrong source, author or date entries as it was with the old form. Those did also help to detect copyvios. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't have a concrete idea what to propose to change, I just wanted to know how to go about it. So I guess the answer would be to talk to user:NeilK. Next question (I'll take it to VPC) - what to do... Rd232 (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Upload_Wizard_-_Free_Art_License. Rd232 (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: My comments were only related due to the fact that about 95.37454% of all FAL images uploaded with UW are copyvios or at least "no permission". I have now read the issue at Commons_talk:Licensing in detail. I suggest that we try not to mix this issue with the issue which was discussed at Commons_talk:Licensing#Free_Art_License.3F initially. That is another problem which should be handled separately. Commons_talk:Licensing#Free_Art_License.3F is not really related to the UW/FAL problem. I have to get to sleep now. I have left Neil a message in chat. He will probably respond here. to the FAL/UW problem. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Following Commons_talk:Licensing#Free_Art_License.3F and Commons:Village_pump#Editing_the_Upload_Wizard - what, if anything, should be done about the Free Art License option in the Wizard? It seems to be causing some confusion. Saibo implied a diagnostic quality, but the Wizard's designers seem to want to avoid that sort of thing [14]. So... ?? Rd232 (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The list of licenses is configurable in LocalSettings.php, which is unfortunately inaccessible to admins at this time. I understand the problem with FAL, but am uncertain what the right fix is at this time. I don't like the idea of using it to catch badly licensed images, or similar tricks. In general I regard this sort of user desperation as a symptom of a bad interface, not as something we want to perpetuate. NeilK (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The right fix is to put the power back in the people who work on this site to customize the upload process as they like and not concentrate the power in the hands of a few developers. No offense. – Adrignola talk 02:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
No offense taken. It may not seem that way but I do understand the difficulties here and I'm not happy with the situation either. However just let me emphasize that power over Commons doesn't interest me at all, nor did anyone tell me to wrest power back from the admins or anything. The main reason I moved this to the configuration was that the language hack system previously used on Commons is a total nightmare. Since the menus were just strings, it wasn't surprising that the choices offered weren't even consistent between languages. Furthermore, the menu was highly complicated, and ugly to boot.
UploadWizard leverages the existing translatewiki system for messages, and can also accomodate a fairly sophisticated interface; with some menu elements even having custom scripting.
It would be great if I could do both -- have a consistent and usable system, that's also admin-editable, but I just don't see how. I and the other Commons admins I consulted figured that the choice of licenses changes infrequently enough that it would be okay to put this in the config, even if it wasn't admin-editable.
However, and this is largely the fault of myself and the other people the WMF engaged for this project, we haven't been keeping up with what happens on Commons. And nobody from Commons was telling me about the FAL problem either. It only recently came to my attention. So, I apologize for that. I still think we can still arrive at a solution that will work for everyone, though. If we have to back to language hacks, well, I guess we have to. NeilK (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice for admins to be able to edit the Wizard, but in the mean time, it would be good to be clearer about how editing works via LocalSettings (which requires developer action, via Bugzilla normally). Just so it's clearer what's easily possible and what's not, for example. Rd232 (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Right. It should be customizable. But I also agree with Saibo, above. FAL tags are usually an indicator of copyvios. Killiondude (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of such licenses which are sure signs of copyvio. I looked into the some of the choices offered in the old upload form, like "too simple to copyright", and virtually none of those were licensed correctly. So, and you can call it a power grab or just Being Bold, I removed those license choices from UploadWizard.
It seems to me that we have a problem of users determined to pick something, and choosing the thing that seems the most likely. If we remove FAL, my hunch is that they'll just pick something else. There must be some other way to solve the problem. NeilK (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be an option there for "This is not my own work and I don't know what license applies". It would work as a nice trap and remove the burden out of the FLA.--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
And what do we do when they pick that option? Prohibit the upload? They'll just go back and pick something else. Upload it anyway and immediately mark it for deletion? Same problem. Powers (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Well (a) you have the chance to educate and perhaps help choose a suitable license if there is one (b) there's the potential for keeping an eye on people who've uploaded files that have been deleted. (Certainly informally; maybe more systematically would be possible as well.) Rd232 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not the same problem. Those files can be automatically marked for revision without abusing the FAL tag for the same effect. My maintenance list currently is only FAL+UW, actually. It would be much more helpful if they were in a proper category, instead of that transvestite.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that under both of the two options I could come up with, the user could just go back and pick some other license that they think will get us off their backs and keep their file from being deleted. If we use your "this is not my own work" suggestion, what do we do with files so categorized? Powers (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Users that voluntarily want to game the system will always find ways to game it, but this is not the point here. Almost all files uploaded under FAL with UW are uploaded by newbies and not by gamers. What we do with those files? We review them, of course, as we are doing now, but it would be a lot easier if they were marked with a proper tag, instead of abusing the FAL license for the same effect, as it is now.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

debate on rights for En wiki Featured Pic

Hi. This is not a Commons issue (photo is at En-Wiki, issue to determine is PD US (only). But would appreciate experts here weighing in on the rights debate for the Picasso painting. If you can comment there, would be most helpful.

The image has been through a PUFD and had a lot of discussion, but then there are still doubts being cast on it. (Side issue, but I would thing the main issue for the image ought to be our usage of it in articles, creating an exposure, not if we put a gold star on it...but still the rights concerns are making some "star voters" hesitate.)

TCO (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Determining "publication" is a thorny process, especially in those days (there was no definition in copyright law). Looking at the discussions though, it was painted in 1907, a black-and-white version was published in a 1910 American magazine, it was exhibited in 1916, was discussed in publications from 1922 and before, and sold in 1924. The question is if any of that constituted "general publication" before the 1924 sale. I would lean towards that 1910 publication being enough, myself -- it's a bit of a stretch to say the painting was unpublished until after 1923. However, the Picasso did file an NIE with the Copyright Office, which included it (among several hundred other works). If the 1910 magazine was truly the first publication though, the U.S. itself would be the country of origin, and the work would not have been eligible for URAA restoration, likewise if deemed published before 1923 in any other country. They would have included the painting in the NIE if there was any chance it was still possibly copyrighted. Per the guidelines on copyrightdata.com, the sale of the magazine containing the black-and-white copy of the painting is "indisputable publication", provided it was authorized (and hard to believe it wasn't). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you stop by the discussion please? I already listed you (before this reply) as one of the 4 Commons rights superstars (serious)!TCO (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Statues of Yuri Gagarin

I have a question about a series of photos of statues of Yuri Gagarin. First, there is this statue commemorating Yuri Gagarin. It was erected in 1984 in Russia (during the Soviet era), but the photo was taken in 2008 (after the Soviet era ended). I've asked here about FoP in the Soviet Union. Then there is a picture I took today of a statue in the UK which is a direct copy (using moulds) of this statue. The picture is here. I have several other pictures of the statue and of the unveiling ceremony, but before I upload them I want to check the status. One complication is that the statue was only granted a one-year license by the local authority, so I think that means it counts as a temporary installation, not a permanent one (whether it becomes permanent later is another matter).

So we have a picture taken in 2011 in the UK of a statue temporarily installed in the UK, but which is a direct copy (clear derivative work) of a statue installed in 1984 in Russia in the Soviet era, of which photos also exist but taken in 2008 (after the Soviet era). So what is the status of all these photos? I fear none are OK in terms of freedom of panorama, but I'm hoping they might be for some reason. There are a number of other statues of Gagarin as well, in Category:Yuri Gagarin and its subcategories. Would those be problematic as well? If so, that would be a bit depressing. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My hunch would be that the UK photos are fine, though it would depend on the definition of "permanent". Powers (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
We definitely have FOP works that are derivative works of works copyrighted in other nations (this seems a bit questionable to me but they tend to be kept in deletion discussions). However, works must be permanently installed in the UK to be eligible for FOP. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. Possibly I need to use a picture of the statue with the shroud covering it before it was unveiled (or no picture at all). It will look silly to use that picture instead of the one of the statue, but needs must. The other question I have is why the newspaper journalists in the crowd with me were happily snapping away at the statue and publishing their photos in newspapers and on websites. How is that different to uploading a picture here? Why are the rules different here than elsewhere? Are others (those journalists) breaking copyright laws with impunity, or are those laws drawn too tightly here? Or is it a case of the journalist publishing in a newspaper being a one-time fair-use publication, versus Commons being a long-term stock archive that needs to be freely reusable by anyone at anytime? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone have an answer to this (the secondary question about newspaper use vs uploading to Commons and how Freedom of panorama works for news photographers), or should I raise it at the Village pump? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Basically, the answer is the last sentence of your question. In the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, see the provisions of chapter III, Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works, for example section 30 about fair dealing for purposes criticism, review and news reporting. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Image upload verification

I was wondering if you could advise me on whether this image is OK to upload i.e. complies with Wiki's copyright, file size etc. And if so, what copyright tag to use. I have had many images deleted in the past for not following the Wikipedia policy!

The poster image by w:Art Young was first published in 1917. Source on date: In w:Ammon Hennacy's The Book of Ammon he says "Elizabeth Gurley Flynn gave us a framed picture by Art Young from the old Masses of a reward wanted for Christ..." (p. 410, 5th ed. 1970). w:The Masses ceased publication in 1917, confirming the artwork was first published prior to this time. He also published the full poster in his autobiography on p.332.

The image has been reproduced many times since 1917, including a 1953 US Government hearing as described here and shown here.

If this image is OK I intend to scan several images from Art for the Masses: a Radical Magazine and Its Graphics 1911-1917 (1989) by Rebecca Zurier and load them into Category:The Masses. Would this also be OK? Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd think it would be ok under {{PD-old}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Would it not be {{PD-US}} or {{PD-1923}}, as it was first published in the US? (For works first published in the United States, use a United States public domain tag). If so, which one is best? Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
In this case the artist is known (Art Young). He died in 1943, so 70 years from the date of his death will only expire on 31 December 2013. However, I agree with Nirvana2013 that since the work was published before 1923, {{PD-1923}} applies. PD-old should only be used when PD-1923 is inapplicable, and it is known who the artist was and 70 years have elapsed since his or her death. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
PD-Old should be use in addition to PD-1923, if both are applicable (which is not true in this case). As an American work, PD-Old is not directly relevant (for U.S. works, copyright term is still almost always based on publication and copyright formalities rather than when the author died), but it could potentially help users in certain other countries (those that use the rule of the longer term, for example). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I defer, of course, to Carl. :-) — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I've modified the PD-old tags, except for PD-old-100, to read "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." This is closer to what we actually want users to do, since PD-old is not usually sufficient to show PD in the US as required by Commons:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Polish passport photos from 1913 (or so)

Hi, I was wondering if photos from Polish passports from 1913 thereabouts are in public domain. According to this template:

Public domain This photograph is in the public domain because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed public domain in Poland.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements:

  1. it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days),
  2. it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,
  3. it was in the public domain in its home country (Poland) on the URAA date ().
To uploader: Please provide where and when the image was first published.
Godlo PRL.svg

it seems like they would be, though I'm not sure what the copyright status of passport photos in general is. Specifically I was thinking of this photo [15] of Cywia Lubetkin from 1913, which is in the Yad Vashem collection. There is also a a Nazi issued passport photo from the war period [16]. Additionally, a photo of Marek Edelman here [17] which would probably also qualify though there I have to do a bit more research.

Any help would be appreciated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos by Brian Burnell, copyright issues

George.Hutchinson (talk · contribs) has uploaded at least three photos by Brian Burnell, most likely with his permission:

However, I believe that the "self-" license tags are not correct, they should be {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Brian Burnell}}, which displays the proper attribution. Should we change it? Also there is an additional requirement for OTRS permission by the photographer, can someone from the OTRS team check the permissions database? SV1XV (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should clearly change it to match the provided documentation. An OTRS email would definitely be a good idea, to confirm the license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tuberculosis painting

Someone had one of those nasty 7 day tags on it, but I went ahead and put it in formal deletions. Want actual opinions delivered as this image is high profile.

TB poster.jpg

TCO (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

soundz r trickee

I want to clear (or kill) this sound, which is stalled for Featured Sound.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rossini-William_Tell_Overture.ogg

P.s. Sorry if it looks like I'm double processing. If I thought the thing was compliant and just wanted a second opinion would come here instead of deletions, but given I have no clue and given the thing needs a pretty good validations, I threw it into the "acid test" of deletions.

P.s.s. You guys are the best. Srsly!

TCO (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

NFL uniforms

Is there any problem with trademarks of the NFL teams for self-drawn uniform pictures? DEWP likes to use them - but currently they are under fair use at ENWP. Example: en:File:AFCE-Uniform-NYJ.PNG

The uploader (currently inactive) said to me: "Sadly, because of NFL licensing rights, that is the highest res I'm allowed to make them." I thought {{trademarked}} is enough?! So if the author agrees to a free license I/he could upload them to Commons. Thanks for comments. --Saibo (Δ) 23:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If he drew the basic uniform image in question, there should be no copyright restrictions, I don't think (any logos on there should be de minimis). Trademark restrictions would apply, but I'm not sure that trademark can really restrict an educational usage such as this (there is no danger of something thinking the NFL or the team is associated, I don't think). While it does obviously restrict some uses outside Wikimedia, yes, those are non-copyright restrictions and should be OK. I'm not sure if the NFL has guidelines on such things (resolution of depictions like that), but if it does not really impact our usage we may as well follow them if so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Carl! Okay, like I thought it is. the selection of colors and some stripes is not copyrighted. Then I just need to get the uploader upploading them here (if possible in higher res) with a free license. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Licence Art Libre / Free Art License

According to this blog entry by Finanzer, images that use only the FAL can't be used in Wikipedia, as §3 of the license requests that any work that is using images under this license must be available under the FAL, too. Therefore, if a FAL image is used in a Wikipedia article, at least this article or even the whole Wikipedia would have to be licensed under FAL, which isn't possible. If an image is available under other, suitable licenses (e.g. CC-BY-SA) there is no problem, but "FAL only" doesn't seem to work. However, there are images on Commons that have the FAL as their only license, as I noticed, e.g. File:Bad Bellingen - Evangelische Kirche8.jpg. So, my question is: Should all "FAL-only" images be deleted? Or maybe, as it doesn't seem to be a useful license for Commons, should we stop accepting the FAL (delete the template) and subsequently delete all images that don't have an additional valid license? Gestumblindi (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this in several places recently. I think that is a misinterpretation -- I think the license is intended to basically be the GPL applied to artwork, or something conceptually similar to CC-BY-SA. They both require derivative works to be the same license as itself, but a Wikipedia article is not a derivative work of the images contained within -- rather, the article is a "collective work" of the text, images, and the arrangement of all of them. The copyright in a collective work is not related to the copyright in the contained works. The FAL is set out by the Free Software Foundation as a definitively "free" license... it's going to be very hard to argue it is not "free". The problem may be one of translation; I would hope that the FAL is not trying to control collective works which make use of the photos (which is beyond the rights which copyright law explicitly gives them), so I would like to see a declaration from the authors of the FAL if that was really their intent. At the moment, I don't see it as being all that different from CC-BY-SA or similar share-alike licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I notice now that the license translation into German which Finanzer refers to is still based on version 1.1 of the license, whereas the English translation of version 1.3 seems to be quite different in the wording: Incorporating this work into a larger work that is not subject to the Free Art License shall not challenge the rights granted by this license. If the work can no longer be accessed apart from the larger work in which it is incorporated, then incorporation shall only be allowed under the condition that the larger work is subject either to the Free Art License or a compatible license. This doesn't sound too bad, I think. But then it's of course not a good thing that the translations are based on different versions. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The license was originally written in French, as well. That is probably the best version to look at (would help to have someone who knows French well). But yes, the above does seem to indicate that being part of a collective work is fine (since the work can be separately accessed), and it is only derivative works that are "infected" (like other copyleft licenses). It would be best to get a clarification from the FAL folks themselves though, if someone knows the appropriate forum to ask in. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The blog is wrong. See the examples provided in the FAQ on the FAL website: http://artlibre.org/licence/faq#FAQ_281. (Following is my own unofficial summary of the examples.) Example 1: A photo under the FAL can illustrate an article that is not under the FAL, provided that the information about the photo mentions the author and the license. However, the photo could not be modified by the superposition of a text which is not licensed under the FAL, because then it would be a derivative work mixing text and photo and such derivative work should be placed under the FAL. Example 2: A piece of music under the FAL can be used as music in a movie that is not under the FAL, provided that the credits of the movie mention the piece of music, its author and its license. But the piece of music could not be mixed with other sound elements that are not under the FAL. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm the author of the blog entry. I have only used the german translation of the license and not the version in other languages. That was the reason of the confusion by me. On the other hand it's an good message, that FAL licensed works can used without any problems inside other works. Than i think this was the intention by using this license in combination with unfree licenses, to avoid using these pictures outside the wikimedia universe. I will in next days correct my blog entry. Thanks for all comments. Greetings --Michail (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much for that, Asclepias. Those to me are clear examples of collective vs derivative works, i.e., usage inside collective works is fine, but derivative works must use the FAL as its license. "Accessed apart from the larger work" is just the way they put it, it would seem -- a song used in a movie (a component of a collective work) can still be accessed apart from the other component works, so it is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Magazine ad from 1963

The image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KleinsAd1963.jpg is categorized as free because it doesn't have a copyright notice. However, it was printed in a commercial magazine, and I'm almost positive the magazine itself had a notice on another page, which would extend to the advertisement. 151.213.41.25 03:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it would not extend to the advertisement. They needed separate copyright notices. There were actually court cases on this, applying specifically for advertisements. (I think it happened after a magazine editor claimed copyright control over an ad, trying to prevent their use in any other publication). That bit about advertisements not being covered by the collective work copyright was made explicit in the 1976 Copyright Act, and is now at 17 USC 404. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hostess Comic Ads from 1975 to 1982, can they be loaded to the Commons?

Hello,

I have been updating information about the Hostess Comic Ads that ran between 1975 to 1982. They all have the copyright notices displayed at the bottom of the ads.

Would those be OK to load into the Wiki commons?

If you want an idea of what they are, there are examples of the ads on a Facebook page: Hostess Comic Ad Archives.

The images I would load into the commons would not have the digital watermarks that the facebook images have.

Thanks, --ImaPaqRat - Bruce D. Fisher (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they cannot be uploaded to Commons. Since they had their own copyright notice, they are under copyright in the U.S. for 95 years following their publication -- in other words quite a long time from now. We would need to get the copyright owners (which should be named in the notices) to license the works under one of the very open copyright licenses we require, which most would not want to do, quite reasonably. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Carl, Thanks for the information. I thought that was going to be the answer. --ImaPaqRat - Bruce D. Fisher (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern sculptures in the US

I'm not familiar with US copyright law. Are the photographs statues shown in the photographs in "Category:Alexander Wilson by Alexander Milne Calder" (1846–1923) and "Category:Joseph Leidy by Samuel Aloysius Murray" (1869–1941) in the public domain in the US? — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It would seem {{PD-US}} would apply to both. Wknight94 talk 16:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
How do we know that first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923? — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not necessary that the publication occurred before 1923. (And if a publication occurred before 1923, it is not necessary that it was the first publication.) But it is necessary that a "publication" occurred in a year allowing the work to enter the public domain. The section Commons:FOP#United_States gives some suggestions about how to find the information. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The specific tag PD-US can not apply. "This media file" is not in the PD because its "copyright has expired" but because its author released it into the PD. There should be some other way for indicating the status of the statue. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, now I'm puzzled. I believe the uploader (presumably the photographer) properly licensed the photographs to the Commons. However, is there sufficient evidence to show that the statues are in the public domain? My understanding is that if the statues are still copyrighted, then the photographs will have to be deleted as there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. If it can be shown that the statues were installed before January 1, 1923, won't {{PD-1923}} apply? Thus, isn't it necessary for "publication" to have occurred before that date? — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the question is about determining the copyright status of the statues. My reply to Wknight94 was about his suggestion to use one particular tag that is worded to apply specifically to the files (the photos) and therefore not applicable to those photos here. But anyway the important point is that the information about the photographs and about the statues can be mentioned and distinguished. The photos already have the proper tags from the uploaders. It leaves the status of the statues to be determined and mentioned. Works can be in the public domain in the U.S. even if published after 1922. It's all that stuff about notices and renewals. The difficulty is to determine if and when they were published (for statues installed before 1978, it seems that would be the time of their installment in a public space), if there was a notice, if there was a renewal. If it is found that they are into the public domain, that information can be made clear, not necessarily with a tag (a tag can be used if it does not cause confusion with the status of the photo but it can just be explained in ordinary words if there is no appropriate tag). -- Asclepias (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I found the Joseph Leidy statue in the Smithsonian's Art Inventories Catalog, but no date of creation is specified. The other statue does not appear to be in the catalogue. — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No copyright notice mentioned on that one, so almost certainly PD one way or another. Ah, here is a 1912 photo of that statue. So, that statue is {{PD-1923}}. You can use the tag on the photos if you want; just clearly mark it as being for the statue in particular.
Oh, and for the first one, here is a 1940 publication (The Flicker, December 1940 issue, 2/3 of the way into the PDF) which has a blurb about the statue. It mentions another publication from 1913 which discussed the statue (along with an illustration), and mentions it had been exhibited in the "seventies", which I presume was the 1870s. So, that one looks easily like PD-1923 as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for the sterling detective work. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a dumb question, perhaps, but I really don't know the answer nor how to find it. How do we determine if something was published with a copyright notice in the US? --- Darwin Ahoy! 21:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at a published copy, and try to find the notice :-) It had to be visible; the idea of notices were so that somebody looking at it would have an idea if they were allowed to make use of the work without doing much other searching. If no notice, it was OK. The notice had to have the year, so in the first 28 years, then you knew it was not OK. After 28 years, you could do one search of the renewal records in Washington, and find out if it was renewed. And after 56 or 75 (depending on the era, now increased to 95) years from the notice date, then you knew it was OK again. For books, it's easy -- it had to be on or near the title page. For movies, during the opening credits I think. For statues in particular, it's hard without looking at the statue itself. Given the court rulings of the era, we think that statues permanently in public would have been deemed published, so they would have needed notices on them. The Smithsonian's SIRIS Art Inventories catalog has a ton of information on public sculpture though, and a large number of them have all their inscriptions documented, and will mention the copyright notices if they find them. That is the usual way we check. Photographs might do it, but without seeing many angles it can be hard to say for sure if one is there or not. For these above, since they were published before 1923, the question of notices, renewals, etc. is moot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Carl, I will use your answer as a reference. I suppose the search in the copyright renewals can't be done online? --- Darwin Ahoy! 04:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Here are the links. Note that these are generally page scans, not a database search. There are databases now for book renewals, but for all other types I think it's the page scans. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit broader than that; http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf has a partial list of places where it can be on page 3, and for books on can be on either side of the front or back cover, etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting; the pre-1978 law had a shorter list of where it could be, whereas the 1976 Act (effective 1978) allowed the Copyright Office to specify the locations as regulations, which is what I assume that PDF is. Not positive if that larger list is valid for pre-1978 publications, but it's possible the Copyright Office had started accepting notices in places not specified in the law, and later changed their regulations to match. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Could all this fascinating information be placed in a guideline somewhere? — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding attribution

Many of the images are licensed under Creative Commons. One of the stipulations is:

 "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor"

The trouble is, out of a few hundred images I looked at only two had verbiage that specified how the image provider wanted attribution.

If nothing is specified, are we to assume no attribution is required?

Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere, but I've been all over this website and can't find an answer to that.

Any help would be appreciated.
—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.42.3.125 (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

When the author did not specify a different attribution line, I think that what he wrote to identify himself as author (for example in the "author" field of the information template, if he used it) can be assumed to be the manner he specified for the attribution. -- Asclepias (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

NASA JPL Caltech Spitzer policy

I recently nominated a Spitzer image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Perseus' Stellar Neighbors.jpg mainly because I completely misread the Special Case clause.

However, now I am confused by the meaning of policy clause "2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech"." (Bold emphasis mine.) Some credit lines have the name of the lead investigator appended, an example is "NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle (SSC/Caltech)". If the "should" means "must" then does Commons need a license template for those images so that re-users will correctly attribute the images? As is done at {{Cc-Hubble}}.

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007/12#Nasa Copyright here concluded that such requests are not obligatory, but is this really the case?

I also nominated a similar image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sig06-027.jpg.

I also nominated an old Spitzer image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SIRTF ir 1.jpg because the image policy at the time was different, but could someone please check I have not misinterpreted that too? I a clarification request at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:Spitzer space telescope (NASA images) -84user (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

USRC Massachusetts (1791).jpg

I hope I did everything correctly. The original source is unavailable, but the same image can be found here (page 3) and it claims that this is an U.S. Coast Guard illustration. We have no information when the image was published, so I put {{PD-USCG}} instead of {{PD-US}}. mickit 08:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan Coat of Arms

Hi, I'm wondering about File:SouthSudanCoatofArms.png ... which is on commons now with a CC3/GDFL license, although it's non-free on English en:File:SouthSudanCoatofArms.png and as part of an Emblem in German de:File:South_Sudan_emblem.png wikipedia Non-free (fair use or somesuch) seems correct to me, as the legal situation isn't so clear yet.

I have made an SVG version of the eagel and wonder if I can upload it to commons... or if actually that png version should be removed from commons because it violates license requirements. Iridos (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sudanese copyright law, Article 6(d), states that copyright does not extend to ideas, methods, state emblems and symbols.. Of course this is a new country, which can pass their own copyright law at some point, so it's anyone's guess as to what that law will say. Not positive, but I think usually the laws of the older country remain in place until/unless new ones are drafted, so at the moment it is arguably OK, but yes the situation is definitely muddy. As for an SVG... if it was drawn according to a written description, it is OK regardless of the copyright of the above-linked rendition. But if you did tracing, or closely copied the outlines etc. of the above version, then yours is a derivative work and will be subject to whatever rights the author of the first one has. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the insight on Sudanese copyright law. As you can see it's a very close approximation to the (*sigh* low resolution) png... so, although it's not traced but drawn by me, of course it's not just made from the description and has to be regarded as a derivative work.
So two more questions: a) Do I interpret what you said correctly in that I should upload to commons for now (althought later law changes might make deletion necessary) and b) if the Sudanese copyright "does not extend to [...] emblems and symbols", what is the correct license to choose and is the CC3/GDFL double-license on the png version File:SouthSudanCoatofArms.png (that should be kept as source for the SVG) correct? Is there something I can link to (this discussion?) to make the reasons for the decision on any specific license clear in the image description? Thanks, Iridos (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The GFDwhatever licensed image on Commons is a typical example of Copyfraud, which is unfortunately quite common on Commons concerning coats of arms. I believe that the arms should be PD, as the Sudanese copyright law declares state emblems as PD, and the constition of the South Sudan declares in article No. 198 that "All laws of South Sudan shall remain in force [...] unless new action are taken [...]" It is very doubtful that South Sudan had an own copyright law before independance, so I believe it should be possible to upload it on Commons. Can anyone add to Template:PD-Sudan the fact that the state emblem is free of copyright and change the linked copyright law the english one here [18]--Antemister (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't seen the explicit continuity of laws declaration. In that case, yes, it would seem that the coat of arms PNG from their official website is PD (virtually a form of PD-author, really), and the SVG version is then also OK (it may not get any copyright protection in South Sudan, but likely would elsewhere). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Building copyright in Iran

Would you mind describing me, what kind of pictures from buildings, can be uploaded in commons? for instance, is it right? --Ayda (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the question of interest to anser is:
According to article 12 of copyright law of Iran, such works remains on protection for a period of thirty years after death of it's author(s). Also according to article 13, copyright of the works which produced on order by an employer belongs to the employer for a period of thirty years from the date of production.

-- RE rillke questions? 16:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a million. But I knew this law. I want to know, picture of which kind of buildings exacltly we can upload? Or none of them?! --Ayda (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It's complicated. In countries with freedom of panorama for buildings, such as the United States, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, anything goes. In countries without it, such as France, the design of the building must either have fallen into the public domain, or be so utilitarian as to be uncopyrightable. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
So what about objects in museums? Something like a plate or glass that is made about 40-50 years ago? --Ayda (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It depends on the country in which the photograph is taken. Different countries have different terms of copyright. If the copyright in the artwork has expired, then you can personally take a photograph of it for the Commons. (Note that you cannot just grab a photograph of the artwork from the Internet even if the artwork itself is very old, because there is a separate copyright in the photograph.) To find out whether the copyright in an artwork has expired, in many cases you will need to know who the author was and when he or she died, because most countries calculate the period of copyright from the year in which the author died. For example, in the UK the copyright period is 70 years from the end of the year in which the author died. Let's say that the artwork was created 50 years ago, in 1961. However, the author only died in 1991. In that case, the artwork will only enter the public domain on 1 January 2062. Note that the UK is one of the countries that recognizes freedom of panorama for certain types of artwork such as sculptures. Assuming the artwork is a piece of sculpture permanently displayed in a public place such as a museum, photographs of it can be taken and uploaded to the Commons without any problems. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Your describings were helpfull. Thanks alot. --Ayda (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Anonymous-EU}} vs {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}

There's a discussion in Template talk:Anonymous-EU#PD-EU-no author disclosure about the difference between these two copyright tags. A merge seems to be the right solution. Could someone unravel the hank? Further, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is not listed in COM:TAG. Thank you--Trixt (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolivian visa with incorrect license

The linked file has a listed license of FDL or CC by-sa. This is almost certainly wrong, as I doubt the state of Bolivia issues its documents under that license. I'm almost certain it should be public domain. (the page it originates from is cc by-nc-sa, but that shouldn't matter, as that wouldn't change the copyright of the visa itself)

Though there seem to be no PD license tags for bolivia. To stay in line with other license tags, we'd probably need Template:PD-BO-exempt, however, I haven't found an english copy of the bolivian copyright law with a short googling. Anyone can help? --Hannob (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The texts of the articles on that external website are under CC-by-nc-sa 2.5, but each image has its own license. This photo is offered by its photographer under CC-by 2.5, altough one must dig deeper into the site to find that information ([19] + [20]). This same photographer uploaded the same photo here on Commons under CC-by-sa 3.0. But you're right, we should try to know the copyright status of the visa document. The WIPO website has an English version of the 1992 law on Copyright of Bolivia. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Well... first, it's a photograph, so the user is licensing that. It may qualify as its own work... not quite a straight reproduction of a visa. The engraving in the background is a US passport I guess, so that's not an issue. As for the visa itself... is that really copyrightable? It's really just a blank form, which usually do not have enough creativity to qualify for copyright. The emblem in the top right is de minimis to me. So... the license may not be wrong, actually. I don't think there is anything there which makes the photograph a derivative work. For more general Bolivia stuff, their law is here. {{PD-old-50}} covers a lot of it, but it looks like photos are protected for 50 years from publication, so maybe Bolivia should have its own tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The author contacted me and she agrees to do whatever necessary to set the license straight. There is no legislation whatsoever regarding national symbols and its copyright status. I agree to go with PD because even though that is a photograph, I don't think it qualifies for copyright. Alhen .::··¨ 12:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It definitely does qualify in some countries (and may in the U.S. as well due to a couple small things -- like the spine in the bottom left); best to leave the license alone, in my opinion. Though if she agrees to PD that is fine too. Like I said I don't think the license was wrong in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright locaction

I have a question. I live in the UK, say I make a design and its protected under british copyright. As its author, can I pick if the british copyright is the one is should follow, no matter where it is (under the agreements) and means that the american "fair use" will not be applicable to it and only the british "fair dealing" is? 78.144.25.38 23:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) (my IP is dynamic by the way)

No. Each nation is sovereign and the copyright status of every work is determined by that nation's laws within that nation. New works copyrighted in the UK are copyrighted in the US for the same period, due to their mutual adherence to international copyright treaties, but a particular use of a work may be fair use inside the US while not being fair dealing inside the UK. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
In a contract, you can have a provision about the jurisdiction whose laws will apply to that contract. For example, the localized Creative Commons licenses often have such a provision. But no, that does not restrict the freedom of people with who you do not have a contract to make use in the United States of the rights that are granted to them directly by the law of the United States outside of the contractual realm. The fair use and fair dealing type of freedom to use copyrighted material is granted to anyone directly by the law, independently of the author's will. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) :As with any law, you follow the law of whatever country you are in. If you are pursuing a lawsuit in the United States, you have to do it by U.S. law and get whatever protection U.S. law gives it. If you pursue another lawsuit in France over the same design, you get whatever protect French law gives it, which may differ from the U.S., and so on. American "fair use" is applicable inside U.S. borders only, UK "fair dealing" is applicable inside UK borders only, Australian "fair dealing" is applicable only in Australia, etc. The "country of origin" concept of the Berne Convention does have meaning for countries which follow the rule of the shorter term to calculate copyright lengths, and is one of the reasons we use the law of that country to decide if Commons keeps it or not -- but that is Commons policy, not related to any actual legal issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

78.144.25.38 -- In the mid 19th-century, there was no copyright protection at all in the U.S. for British works, something which Dickens etc. complained about... AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

copyright / licensing / usage question?

Go ahead and blast me if this is just completely obvious... but I read over everything and I don't believe it was covered. I write songs and music which I put on my YouTube Channel and Facebook for subscribers to listen to and who know maybe a record producer or publishing company. (I know... go buy a lottery ticket - my odds are better) Anyway... I hate just putting a picture of me there static during the songs. So, I joined I-Stock and pay for pictures that go along with the words, feelings or message of the songs I write. So they are sort of story telling to the music. BUT... I Stock is expensive, especially for something that I'm not making money by putting on YouTube. It's all out there for free. Obviously "if" someone did like me or my song and wanted to pay me for it, that's for the song - not the little video I put up to go along with it. As a matter of fact, "if" someone did like my songs, I'm sure the first part of the deal would be that I would "have" to remove all of my videos/songs from YouTube so the companies could do their own thing. So I'm rambling... so to the point already. "Can" I upload images and video clips from Wikimedia Commons to use in my videos on YouTube without any sort of penalties, lawsuits, or loss of my own copyrights for my songs? This should be a short answer... either "Yes" I can do that, or "No" you idiot!

Thanks for helping to clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cervezaman (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking wikimedia commons's photos will be less expensive than i-stock, for sure Lilyu - smile.svg
If i was you :
What i am creating is a collection, the final video will probably have to be released with the same free license as the images only if they have a viral character (share alike), for example : CC BY SA 3.0.
If they are published in the public domain, or with a really free licenses like Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, or CC BY 3.0 (just paternity), the final video will probably not have to be published with the same license.
I would think i could avoid troubles and take in the same video only photos with the same license (or if i am willing to dig into that, licenses that are compatibles)
I could credit the photos I used in the description of the video with just a link to the commons page of each image used in the video... like :
This video includes free materials, see description pages for licensing:
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Biegsames%22_Shetlandpony.JPG
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pony_Heterochromia.jpg
I'm not a lawyer, this is just my uninformed opinion, please contact a legal expert or a lawyer for legal informations. --Lilyu (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


Short answer... "yes", in general, as this is the type of thing we are trying to allow, but be careful to follow the terms of the licenses. Long answer... I'm not a lawyer, but... I don't think there is any way your songs or music could be considered a "derivative work" of any images or video clips on Commons no matter what you do, as they are not using any expression from them. So no, there should be no risk of forcing you to license your songs. If you use some audio here as *part* of your song, or use a melody from someone else's song, that would be different. Copyright law (usually - each country can draw their own lines) distinguishes between "derivative works", where a work is based on the expression found in another work but adds additional copyrightable expression (such as a translation of a novel, or a drawing of a photograph), and a "collective work", which is the "selection and arrangement" of other individual works which are merely copied in. The "selection and arrangement" is actually considered a completely separate work with its own copyright. In your case, the video seems more like the latter -- you are combining your song (which itself would have lyrics, a literary copyright, and the song, a musical composition and a separate copyright), along with images made by others to make up a video. The graphical part of the video (i.e. the video track) may, or may not be a derivative work of the contained photos -- I would assume it probably would be. You would then need to carefully look at the licenses of the images you are using; if any of them are "CC-BY-SA" then any derivative works must also be licensed CC-BY-SA; and if any are licensed "GFDL", then derivative works must use the GFDL license (which would cause problems for you, since you have to somehow include the several-page text of the GFDL license wherever you distribute it). If they are "CC-BY", then there is no forced license on the video part -- it is only the "SA" part of the Creative Commons licenses which force themselves on derivative works. In all situations though you must include credit for each image used somewhere in your video (credits section I would guess), and note their individual authors and licenses. That is important. You can combine CC-BY and CC-BY-SA images together, but the result must be a CC-BY-SA work. You cannot combine CC-BY-SA and GFDL together, unfortunately, due to technical incompatibilities between those two licenses. However, if a file is multilicensed, with both CC-BY-SA and GFDL listed, you can pick which one you want -- if you have a CC-BY image, and a image with both GFDL and CC-BY-SA, you can make a derivative work of both of them using CC-BY-SA as the license -- you are choosing to use the second image under CC-BY-SA and following those terms. So yes, it should be OK. However note if someone likes your entire *video*, and not just your songs, they must continue to comply with all those license terms -- if it is shown on MTV, then the credits section must be shown, and if CC-BY-SA, then they must make clear the video portion is also licensed CC-BY-SA. Your songs however should remain completely yours; nothing should ever imply a right to use your songs because they part of a "freely-licensed" video (the copyright on a collective work has no effect on any of the contained works). It's always best to make that situation clear in the credits section though; if you label the entire video "CC-BY-SA" without making clear that it does not apply to the songs, that could be an issue as someone could misconstrue the intent. Sorry for the long answer, but hope it helps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Short answer: if the image page says "Creative Commons Zero Waiver" or "Public domain", you can go ahead and use the image without any conditions for free. If it says "Creative Commons Attribution License" or "Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License", you can use it for free but have to give the author's name and the name of the license in your video description (a link back to Commons is nice too). You are not in any of these cases compelled to release your music under a free license. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Note that CC BY-SA 3.0 includes something which might affect this (I am not a lawyer and only asked on the #cc IRC channel): “For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.” --AVRS (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Image rights on private property

Via an OTRS complaint it has been brought to my attention that a number of images of Brookwood Cemetery are kicking about here on Commons - example: File:Brookwood_Cemetery_-_geograph.org.uk_-_584812.jpg. According to their website they do not allow photography on-site without written permission and (even then) explicitly do not allow people to publish images online. How far can this be applied - do we have to consider these images for deletion? Is there precedence? Input welcome, thanks. --ErrantX (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The general principle is stated in "Commons:Image casebook#Museums and interior photography". From a copyright point of view, a person who takes a photograph on private property still owns the copyright in the photographs and can deal with them as he or she wishes. This is not affected by any contractual conditions that may be broken (for example, the photographer is only allowed to enter the property on condition that no photographs are taken or published online). It is entirely up to the photographer whether to upload the photographs to the Commons and license them appropriately. However, it is possible for the photographer to be sued by the property owner for breach of contract or, perhaps, barred from future entry to the property, so the photographer must decide it is worth risking such action being taken to upload the photographs. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The photographer might breach a contract by taking the photo, but WMF is not bound by this contract. From a copyright point of view, it's COM:FOP in UK, "in premises open to the public".
But i'm not a lawyer, this is just my opinion, please contact a lawyer for legal informations--Lilyu (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that input - we will see what happens. A further idea has been raised though - that some of these images depict tombs of the deceased for whom the relatives are still living (and the cemetery has apparently had a number of complaints relating to those images appearing online). What is the Commons approach to such a situation/ Can we exercise some sensitivity to these - or is there other compromise to consider? Just looking for general input here to help resolve an OTRS issue. --ErrantX (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Why would someone complain about photos of their relatives graves? I don't get it. Are they trying to keep the fact that these people are dead a secret? Kaldari (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
No idea exactly... Personally I am not sure I agree on the concerns - but on the other hand I'd like to come up with a compromise to make everyone happy :) --ErrantX (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Some people are touchy about it, thinking it is more a personal or family thing (and probably why the cemetery has the restrictions in the first place, even if there is little real right to prevent it; I've seen other cemeteries with similar requests). The listed photo comes from geograph, so we aren't the original publication even. The right to privacy typically terminates upon death (particularly in Europe), but there may be a common-decency type of thing, though a bit odd to apply here. I tend to think we would respond to requests from individual families better than a blanket request from the organization to delete (which seems a bit too much). Perhaps we can blur names or something, if there are specific images that families have complained about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about old photos

File:Kurdish army.jpg, File:Kurdish army.jpg and File:Qazi.jpg are old photographs - Qazi for instance was President in 1946 - claimed to be the editor's own work. This seems unlikely, but how do we determine the copyright status in cases like this one? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

easy, you delete all the copyvios from this uploader that claim own work on anything he found on the web. Google image is pretty efficient on this kind of images, for example : [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] --Lilyu (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)