Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/07

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

Photograph, Tasmania

I'm looking at a permission request (2012062110006439) from Tasmania. In short, the photo was taken in 1951, the photographer, a professional, is dead. The subject is willing to give permission, but I'm not sure this is enough. I guess Tasmania is subject to Berne, as part of Australia?

According to the general pdf at this link, it looks like death plus 50 years. So if the photographer died before 1962, the copyright has expired, otherwise not?--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Photographs taken before 1955 are now PD in Australia; see {{PD-Australia}}. They had a shorter term than normal works. However, the U.S. copyright is almost certainly still valid. If this was a commissioned portrait... it's quite possible the copyright would have been considered to be transferred to the commissioning party if there was no agreement to the contrary (in most laws today, it's the other way around, as there is was always lots of uncertainty about such things). If it was a photograph kept and published by the photographer, maybe that's different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

w:File:August Landmesser.jpg

Hello, Could this image be uploaded to Commons? I could not find the photographer, so it might be {{Anonymous-EU}}. Is it OK? Yann (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Should be. If the Washington Post couldn't figure out who took the photo (they credit it to "unknown"), it seems to me that there's a good chance it was anonymous. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
You may wish to google images - August Landmesser and find a higher resolution one first. I found one un-cropped at 1200x780.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like {{copyvio|See COM:URAA}} to me. Basically, you can't use any German photo taken after 1925. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

See File:August Landmesser with circle.jpg. Yann (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump?uselang=de#Template:Additional_license_instead_of_Template:Noncommercial

Please see Commons:Village_pump#Template:Additional_license_instead_of_Template:Noncommercial. Comments welcome. Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you contact a member directly?/ that is, someone who has uploaded files

Trying to accomplish that. Also, how do you know that the works uploaded are in fact in the public domain? Will the agreement on this website hold up legally?

Thank you!

Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.238.250 (talk • contribs)

Hello,
Could you explain what information you are looking for? Regards, Yann (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
For your first question, if you go to the file page (in the format of http or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:filename.suffix), you should be able to find a link to the uploader's userpage and the license information for the file. With regard to your second question, Commons does not offer legal advice, so we can't answer the question. We can provide some more general information, though, and Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia may be useful. It states, in part,
"While the copyright and licensing information supplied for each image is believed to be accurate, the Wikimedia Foundation does not provide any warranty regarding the copyright status or correctness of licensing terms. If you decide to reuse files from Commons, you should verify the copyright status of each image just as you would when obtaining images from other sources."
We have some general information about copyright statuses at Commons:Copyright, though the above disclaimer applies to that page as well and it is necessarily incomplete. See Commons:General disclaimer for more. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Screen shots (stills) from syndicated television programs

The show is now off the air. Can they be licensed if credited?Traveler7 (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No. In the U.S., they only become PD 95 years after publication. For some shows from before 1964, there is a chance if the owners forgot to renew the copyright, but you'd have to do searches. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but I am really confused about the wide-spread use of them on Wikipedia under the "fair-use" licence. Take a look at the infobox photo on the American Idol Wikipedia article, for example. Even though a detailed "fair use rationale" is on the photo how can it still be used? I see them everywhere Traveler7 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just read "Wikipedia:Non-free content" and I see what is going on. Thanks again, Traveler7 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Licensing question about File:Alzavolaopusdeiclub.jpg

Hi. A Wikipedian asked me about the usability of this release, and I have to share his concerns. We do not always require OTRS for older images, grandfathering them in, but the language of the release itself makes me uneasy. I wouldn't accept this as an OTRS agent now, but would press for a specific release.

In short, the uploader said to them, "Normally we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of the photo, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely."

Whether they understood or not that "normally" meant that any grant of use of the license would permit commercial reuse and modification, their email doesn't specify. The subject line was "photos of Toni Zweifel and Alzavola Club for use in a web-based encyclopedia" and their permission is "So ok to integrate them in the article!" The uploader has been inactive for years.

I was tempted to flag this for a deletion discussion, but wanted to just run it by you guys first to see if there's precedent on Commons for how such older images are addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a permission to "use" the image and to "integrate the image in the article". It is dubious if Wikipedia is allowed to use it in any article other than the one referred to as "the article" and it is also dubious if the GFDL claim is correct. I'd say delete since the e-mail contains too much ambiguity: it is not obvious that GFDL applies. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The OTRS is just a method of communication and archive system. Its implementation may have changed how the communications are archived, but it did not change the basics that a valid declaration of consent to an accepted free license has always been required, before as well as after its implementation. For this file, the description page served as the archive. That's the grandfathering relative to the OTRS aspect of the matter: Commons accepts that a pre-OTRS communication can be archived on the description page (or somewhere else) instead of archived in an OTRS ticket. However, irrespective of where the declaration of license is archived, that does not change the fact that, in order for the declaration of the copyright holder to be considered as constitutive of an accepted free license, it is necessary, and it always was necessary, that the wording of such declaration be clear enough to allow a reasonable and safe conclusion to that effect. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say delete as well. Low quality, lack of scope, no consent from subjects in a private place. etc, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's in use, so it's automatically in scope. Low quality is therefore also not an issue; it's good enough. And it appears to be a public place. I see no reason to delete on either grounds. Permission... not sure. It's old enough that we'd accept the pasted permission statement if it was good enough, but... not positive. The text of the response is not great, but the question was very clear to point out the needed license and the scope (not just Wikipedia-only). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

1903 postcard??

I own a postcard showing images of Brigham Young and his 21 wives (along with their names). It's an interesting piece and I'd like to upload a scanned image to the commons. The postcard carries this copyright notice: Copyrighted 1903 by F.H. Leib, Salt Lake City, Utah. From my reading of the copyright circular [1], it appears that the copyright on this item expired 28 years after the original date, unless the copyright was extended for an additional 28 years. It would appear that I'm OK with putting up a scan of the image. Am I right?

Thanks, Davie

The postcard was published in the United States before 1923, so it is currently in the public domain. It doesn't matter if the copyright was renewed or not; it is in the public domain in either case. Use the template {{PD-1923}} as "licence". --Stefan4 (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that preferred practice is to first upload a scan including the back of the postcard, and then upload an image of the front (image/photograph side) over that. This way the copyright notice (or lack thereof) is documented in the file history. See, for example, File:Walter Koenig Star Trek.JPG, in which the file history shows that there was no copyright notice. cmadler (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It helps to show the date in this case -- copyright notice is not relevant for something published in 1903. Showing the back is far more important if claiming PD-US-no_notice, but not as much here (unless the date is only on the back). But it's still good to see the back, regardless, so it's still good practice in any case ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant to say. :-) cmadler (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Darn, that's a good tip, and I was not aware of it as working practice. Is there a Commons behavioural guideline that suggests doing this? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Doing this with postcards, especially those that were mailed, gives you a date (cancellation mark) and sometimes a dated message. This can help determine if the card is before 1923 for US licenses, and can also show it's before 1978. On older cards, it can be hard at times to know if the item is before 1923 or not; getting back and front of the sent ones helps with that. We hope (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

CERN images

File:Candidate Higgs boson decay event at CERN LHC, May 13 2012.jpg is claimed to be in the public domain. This is probably not correct according to the license information provided (http://copyright.web.cern.ch/), and as far as I know it is debatable whether the copyright policy of the CERN allows us to host their files. kismalac 10:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if it was legal to host the files under their terms (#6 is debatable), it would not conform to Commons policy (see Commons:Licensing). We have a self-imposed policy (as do all Wikimedia projects) to only host "free" material (see the Licensing link, and freedomdefined.org), and their image terms don't conform to that (not surprising, as most works don't). Their terms don't come anywhere close, actually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

DAWN Journals

I have 28 more of these: [2]. Not sure what license or if they're allowed. Pls advise. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are the author/copyright holder of all the text and images then the license you have on that one should be fine. Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 is a similar one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not. I just figured nobody is since it's a defunct paper and the group has disbanded. I just wanted to upload a sample and then fix the license, but didn't know which to pick. What do you suggest? Should I speedy it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I would guess that it is probably copyrighted. A quick skim of South Africa's Copyright Act of 1978 suggests that there is a life + 50 years rule in South Africa, though I have no idea how they apply that to the "juridical person"s (organizations) mentioned in the Act. It would take more research to see who, if anyone, would get the copyright after the organization dissolves or whether the terrorist/banned status of Umkhonto we Sizwe in South Africa affected the status of its copyrights. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
At the least, I don't think you can say "defunct organization, so free" unless you know what happens to the intangible property of defunct organizations in South Africa. Without looking anything up, I can imagine three possibilities: a) copyright going to the members or leaders of the organization when it dissolved, b) copyright reverting to the original author(s), c) copyright escheating to the government of South Africa. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Good points. So, should I speedy it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I would. :( --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I will. Thanks for the input. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Added public domain photo

Hi, I found this downloadable public domain image here http://library.byways.org/assets/56820. It is an asset of the National Scenic Byways Program (NSBP), which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.(http://byways.org/learn/). I've now uploaded that image to wikimedia here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Varn_Park.jpg. The site requests that you retain the photo credits in perpetuity wherever you use or distribute the image, and that you indicate that you acquired the item from the this digital media library. I.e. “Photo by xxx, courtesy of National Scenic Byways Online (www.byways.org).” There is no author listed, so I added "Photo courtesy of National Scenic Byways Online (www.byways.org)." However, I wasn't clear on which Public Domain categorization to give it.

Also, the image was uploaded to the site on January 03, 2005, but the EXIF info extracted on upload says exposure was 11:05, 2 June 2003. I was wondering should change the summary date to the latter?

Thank you, BigFields (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I would use the date of publication on the website. You can use {{PD-copyright holder}} if the NSB website is the copyright holder. Otherwise use {{PD-because}}. Osiris (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cc-Gobierno de Chile

I just saw this template that says "This image is taken from the Government of Chile website, which is under the following licence: Cc-by-3.0-cl." I cannot find any such license statement at that website. Can someone help me out? --Rosenzweig τ 19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

At the bottom right of the page (apparently part of the page footer that's on every page) there is a little CC which links to that license. Rd232 (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The Firefox browser I use for some reason does not display that part of the footer (it stops at "Palacio de La Moneda - Teléfono: +56 2 6904000"), but in Chrome which I started to check I can see it too. (Found out why Firefox does not display it; I have set a minimum font size to avoid websites torturing my eyes with microscopic lettering, which caused the rest of the text to be moved out of the rectangle it was supposed to be shown in. Something like this shouldn't happen IMO).
Which brings me to another question: Do we really accept such a link without any further explanation to mean that the whole website is released under this license? --Rosenzweig τ 20:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
A better explanation would be nice, but it does seem to be part of the footer appearing on every page. So in the absence of any contradictory claims, I think we can say it applies to all content on the site. Rd232 (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. But the CC-by-3.0-cl link should be present on the specific page from where the specific content is copied. The footer with that CC link does seem to be on the pages of gob.cl. However, on gob.cl, the link to the photographs section takes you to fotopresidencia.cl, where the pages do not have the CC link but have instead what looks like a no-derivatives notice (Las fotografias contenidas en este portal son públicas y sin costo para el usuario. Se autoriza su uso citando la fuente y no alterando su contenido original). But if you click on the link to their flickr account, it has photographs under CC-by-2.0. And if you click on the flickr link from the president section of gob.cl, it takes you to another flickr account where photos are also under CC-by-2.0. But if you click on the flickr link from the first lady section of gob.cl, then it takes you to a different flickr account, where photos are not free. All this can make things somewhat confusing in particular when the same photos are at several places under different notices.
  • Here is an example of a photo that is on a page with the CC link (in small size and without the photographer's credit) and also on a page with the no-derivatives notice (in large size and with the photographer's credit). I guess that means we can use the smaller version under CC-by-3.0-cl from the news section, but not the larger version from the photographs section.
  • Here is an example of a photo that is on a page with the CC link (in small size) and that is also available on this page of the main flickr account under CC-by-2.0 (in large size). Commons currently has a copy of the small one with the CC-by-3.0-cl license. It would be advantageous instead to have the large one from flickr with the more easily confirmable license.
  • Here is an example of a photo copied from the main flickr account, where it is available under CC-by-2.0-generic, but tagged on Commons with CC-by-3.0-cl.
  • Here is an example of photo on Commons with a broken source link to gob.cl. As it did not have the benefit of a license review, we should find some current evidence of the validity of its license.
-- Asclepias (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts. Your examples show that the matter is rather complicated and seemingly not as clear as the template suggests. So should we really keep this blanket template for the whole website, or should we rather treat each image on a case by case basis? --Rosenzweig τ 16:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If the image is from a page with the footer, without any other indication of a different license or author, I think it's fine. Having other licenses elsewhere does not change the given license. I do however have questions about File:Cecilia Morel Montes.jpg (the last image Asclepias mentioned); looking at the archived URL it appears that section of the website has a completely different footer and does not mention any CC license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Photographic images of readymade modern art (chairs)

At w:en:Template:Did you know nominations/Rover chair, the issue of copyright was recently raised in respect of File:Rover Chair leather at Barbican London 2010 Ron Arad.jpg (UK). The issue also applies to File:Rover Chair 2-seat sofa Ron Arad.jpg (Germany) and numerous other photos here (the vast majority of which won't be of readymades). The issues have probably been previously discussed, but I've failed to find explicit references.

So I have some questions:

  1. As these two specific chairs are readymades comprising pre-existing generic objects on sale as goods (I don't know whether the original Kee-Klamp milking stalls were retained or if a new design was conceived), do they qualify as passing the threshold of originality?
  2. If they do, should the files be deleted from Commons (and hopefully retained on en-wp as non-free content)?
  3. In which case, is there any OTRS route which could be pursued in order to preserve them on Commons instead?

A permanent installation in a public place would allow creation of a new free photo. Maybe there is one elsewhere in London or perhaps in Israel. I have no way of knowing.

All advice gratefully appreciated. -- Trevj (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Some things:
  1. I have proposed one file for deletion because I don't trust the permission from the photographer to publish this under a CC-BY licence. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rover Chair 2-seat sofa Ron Arad.jpg.
  2. In some countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, there is no copyright for utilitarian objects (such as fridges and cars). Wouldn't this sofa be seen as a utilitarian object (and thus in the public domain in those two countries)? In that case, any photo taken in the United States or the United Kingdom would be fine (as long as you obtain permission from the photographer). In other countries, such as Sweden, utilitarian objects do obtain copyright protection, and the so-called Mini Maglite case (T 1421-07) shows that also utilitarian objects from the United States obtain copyright protection, even though I suppose that the torch doesn't obtain any copyright protection in the United States. FOP does not apply, but it is possible that only 3D copies of a utilitarian object are copyrightable, so a 2D photo might still be OK, although it hasn't been tested in court. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.
  1. I've just sent an email regarding licensing to the author of the 2-seater photo - please refer to the deletion discussion.
  2. Are there any further thoughts regarding the threshold of originality and utilitarian objects in this case (the photographer of the single seat has specifically amended the licence in order to allow free use)?
Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Copie

{{Copie}}, a license tag used by only 8 files, links to a site that no longer provides any more details about the license. Is this a problem? Rd232 (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is still possible to find, at the internet archive website, that the "Copie" symbol was associated to the notice "sem copyright" (without copyright) on the copy of the 2010 version of the website of the organization that promoted it. And to find "details" on the copy of the 2009 version of its other website at [3] -- Asclepias (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Links to archive.org added to the template. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we steal this image?

Could someone tin-eye research this image? I wonder if the base image is "free" and the photo claims of rights are not ones we recognize. The whole 2D thingie. Help?

[4]

It's not an idle request. Is a sweet image and will help some important articles. I just don't know the provenance though.

Thanks in advance for the expert help.

TCO (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no at the moment. As you point out, there isn't enough information on the image's provenance for us to safely determine that it is out of copyright. The subject pictured might well have occurred in the 19th century, but the drawing could be a modern one that is still copyrighted. I found a coloured version of the drawing, and note that the artist wrote his (or her) name on the table as "P. Fouché" (?), so if this person's death date can be found out we may have a better idea of the copyright status. A Japanese website claims that the drawing dates from 1903, but without a source for this information it may not be safe to rely on it. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple more illustrations by the same artist collected here. I have not found the original source of those either though, nor have I found something which gives the first name let alone life dates. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I know that's not what you're asking, but if you don't find the informations about the illustration by Paul Fouché, maybe you can use this illustration by Louis Poyet? -- Asclepias (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
An engraving by Louis Poyet. --Martin H. (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I crowdsourced the Paul Fouche question to the French Wiki.

Yes, I'd like the other image. Is it uploadable?

TCO (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not, Louis Poyet died in 1913, his works should be in the public domain both in France and the US. --Rosenzweig τ 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:W.Herschel, C.Herschel.png is by the same P. Fouché, BTW. --Rosenzweig τ 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this illustrator, who was active in France in the 1880s and 1890s. fr:Gallica also has some works illustrated by him from the same period. --Rosenzweig τ 16:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Good find. The work is available online at Gallica. This illustration is on page 465. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, very nice searching. That would seem to be the person. This is another work by him. So... active from at least the early 1880s. That may be early enough to presume death before 1942, and I guess gallica.fr assumes so as well. Add the uploads to Category:Henri Moissan at the very least. Was the original book in color, or is that a more recent addition? Would really like to find the actual life dates to be sure, but... PD does seem a reasonable assumption. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Henri Moissan making diamonds.jpg another photo. Trying to make diamonds in this one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to be all "peel me a grape". But could someone upload the cropped and uncropped P. Fouche paintings? For the cropped one, need a screenshot or something. And for the uncropped one, need watermark removal. I will put the cropped one in the Fluorine article on Wiki. The Poyej engraving is quite good also. I would do it all, but my head hurts.TCO (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I will try it. If I get the wrong images, feel free to overwrite them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You rule. Thanks man. Off to put it into a 50,000 eyeballs per month article! TCO (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I assume they are the correct images. We may yet find one without a watermark. My first barnstar as well. Thanks for that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have one question about this logo of a former football/soccer club vanished in 1944 (link to the logo). Can I upload it on Commons, because it's not original enough, or not ? This logo is used on this article fr:Olympique lillois (football), which it'll be a featured article on few weeks (I hope).

Sorry if my english is bad. Twilight-Brawl (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Threshold_of_originality doesn't have a French entry. You could try uploading it and see if anyone wants to challenge it or google the law there. Does fr:wikipedia have any information on threshold of originality?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
There's an article on fr:Wikipédia fr:Seuil d'originalité with no mentions about Commons rules and the Template:PD-textlogo on Commons (here, so) got a French entry. By the way, thanks for the answer. I upload the logo now, hoping it won't be deleted. Twilight-Brawl (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"French jurisprudence considers that the originality of a work is made out if it bears the imprint of the personality of its author. English judges, themselves, distinguish the originality of a work by more specific criteria: the work must not have been copied, and the author must have invested labor, skill or some effort in achieving thereof." google translation from http://m2bde.u-paris10.fr/content/le-concept-d%E2%80%99originalit%C3%A9-dans-la-l%C3%A9gislation-fran%C3%A7aise-du-droit-d%E2%80%99auteur-et-dans-celle-du-co I think UK has one of the lowest levels. I will add the link to the TOO talk page where I started a section. Someone that speaks french may wish to add it to the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

North Korea and COM:SIG?

How do we deal with signatures from North Korea? There is no entry at COM:SIG, but the North Korean copyright law says that calligraphy is copyrightable. I'm not sure if this also means that a normal signature is copyrightable. Should we delete the two images above? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to side with keeping signatures unless we have some specific indication they may be copyrightable, such as calligraphy or the UK situation (which isn't even certain, just more possible than elsewhere). Most of the time, I can't imagine writing your own name in your own handwriting really involves any creativity. If someone's signature is really a drawing, that could be an exception too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a link to the relevant law? Calligraphy is a form of art in Korea, so unless it specifically mentions personal signatures I can't imagine that just by "calligraphy" it would be referring to that. Osiris (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You can read the law here, but Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-DPRKGov suggests that North Korea has got a new copyright law and that the law on Wikisource is outdated. --Stefan4 (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Photographic images of readymade modern art (chairs)

At w:en:Template:Did you know nominations/Rover chair, the issue of copyright was recently raised in respect of File:Rover Chair leather at Barbican London 2010 Ron Arad.jpg (UK). The issue also applies to File:Rover Chair 2-seat sofa Ron Arad.jpg (Germany) and numerous other photos here (the vast majority of which won't be of readymades). The issues have probably been previously discussed, but I've failed to find explicit references.

So I have some questions:

  1. As these two specific chairs are readymades comprising pre-existing generic objects on sale as goods (I don't know whether the original Kee-Klamp milking stalls were retained or if a new design was conceived), do they qualify as passing the threshold of originality?
  2. If they do, should the files be deleted from Commons (and hopefully retained on en-wp as non-free content)?
  3. In which case, is there any OTRS route which could be pursued in order to preserve them on Commons instead?

A permanent installation in a public place would allow creation of a new free photo. Maybe there is one elsewhere in London or perhaps in Israel. I have no way of knowing.

All advice gratefully appreciated. -- Trevj (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Some things:
  1. I have proposed one file for deletion because I don't trust the permission from the photographer to publish this under a CC-BY licence. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rover Chair 2-seat sofa Ron Arad.jpg.
  2. In some countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, there is no copyright for utilitarian objects (such as fridges and cars). Wouldn't this sofa be seen as a utilitarian object (and thus in the public domain in those two countries)? In that case, any photo taken in the United States or the United Kingdom would be fine (as long as you obtain permission from the photographer). In other countries, such as Sweden, utilitarian objects do obtain copyright protection, and the so-called Mini Maglite case (T 1421-07) shows that also utilitarian objects from the United States obtain copyright protection, even though I suppose that the torch doesn't obtain any copyright protection in the United States. FOP does not apply, but it is possible that only 3D copies of a utilitarian object are copyrightable, so a 2D photo might still be OK, although it hasn't been tested in court. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.
  1. I've just sent an email regarding licensing to the author of the 2-seater photo - please refer to the deletion discussion.
  2. Are there any further thoughts regarding the threshold of originality and utilitarian objects in this case (the photographer of the single seat has specifically amended the licence in order to allow free use)?
Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Copie

{{Copie}}, a license tag used by only 8 files, links to a site that no longer provides any more details about the license. Is this a problem? Rd232 (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is still possible to find, at the internet archive website, that the "Copie" symbol was associated to the notice "sem copyright" (without copyright) on the copy of the 2010 version of the website of the organization that promoted it. And to find "details" on the copy of the 2009 version of its other website at [5] -- Asclepias (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Links to archive.org added to the template. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we steal this image?

Could someone tin-eye research this image? I wonder if the base image is "free" and the photo claims of rights are not ones we recognize. The whole 2D thingie. Help?

[6]

It's not an idle request. Is a sweet image and will help some important articles. I just don't know the provenance though.

Thanks in advance for the expert help.

TCO (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no at the moment. As you point out, there isn't enough information on the image's provenance for us to safely determine that it is out of copyright. The subject pictured might well have occurred in the 19th century, but the drawing could be a modern one that is still copyrighted. I found a coloured version of the drawing, and note that the artist wrote his (or her) name on the table as "P. Fouché" (?), so if this person's death date can be found out we may have a better idea of the copyright status. A Japanese website claims that the drawing dates from 1903, but without a source for this information it may not be safe to rely on it. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple more illustrations by the same artist collected here. I have not found the original source of those either though, nor have I found something which gives the first name let alone life dates. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I know that's not what you're asking, but if you don't find the informations about the illustration by Paul Fouché, maybe you can use this illustration by Louis Poyet? -- Asclepias (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
An engraving by Louis Poyet. --Martin H. (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I crowdsourced the Paul Fouche question to the French Wiki.

Yes, I'd like the other image. Is it uploadable?

TCO (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not, Louis Poyet died in 1913, his works should be in the public domain both in France and the US. --Rosenzweig τ 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:W.Herschel, C.Herschel.png is by the same P. Fouché, BTW. --Rosenzweig τ 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this illustrator, who was active in France in the 1880s and 1890s. fr:Gallica also has some works illustrated by him from the same period. --Rosenzweig τ 16:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Good find. The work is available online at Gallica. This illustration is on page 465. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, very nice searching. That would seem to be the person. This is another work by him. So... active from at least the early 1880s. That may be early enough to presume death before 1942, and I guess gallica.fr assumes so as well. Add the uploads to Category:Henri Moissan at the very least. Was the original book in color, or is that a more recent addition? Would really like to find the actual life dates to be sure, but... PD does seem a reasonable assumption. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Henri Moissan making diamonds.jpg another photo. Trying to make diamonds in this one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to be all "peel me a grape". But could someone upload the cropped and uncropped P. Fouche paintings? For the cropped one, need a screenshot or something. And for the uncropped one, need watermark removal. I will put the cropped one in the Fluorine article on Wiki. The Poyej engraving is quite good also. I would do it all, but my head hurts.TCO (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I will try it. If I get the wrong images, feel free to overwrite them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You rule. Thanks man. Off to put it into a 50,000 eyeballs per month article! TCO (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I assume they are the correct images. We may yet find one without a watermark. My first barnstar as well. Thanks for that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not original enough for this logo

Hi, I have one question about this logo of a former football/soccer club vanished in 1944 (link to the logo). Can I upload it on Commons, because it's not original enough, or not ? This logo is used on this article fr:Olympique lillois (football), which it'll be a featured article on few weeks (I hope).

Sorry if my english is bad. Twilight-Brawl (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Threshold_of_originality doesn't have a French entry. You could try uploading it and see if anyone wants to challenge it or google the law there. Does fr:wikipedia have any information on threshold of originality?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
There's an article on fr:Wikipédia fr:Seuil d'originalité with no mentions about Commons rules and the Template:PD-textlogo on Commons (here, so) got a French entry. By the way, thanks for the answer. I upload the logo now, hoping it won't be deleted. Twilight-Brawl (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"French jurisprudence considers that the originality of a work is made out if it bears the imprint of the personality of its author. English judges, themselves, distinguish the originality of a work by more specific criteria: the work must not have been copied, and the author must have invested labor, skill or some effort in achieving thereof." google translation from http://m2bde.u-paris10.fr/content/le-concept-d%E2%80%99originalit%C3%A9-dans-la-l%C3%A9gislation-fran%C3%A7aise-du-droit-d%E2%80%99auteur-et-dans-celle-du-co I think UK has one of the lowest levels. I will add the link to the TOO talk page where I started a section. Someone that speaks french may wish to add it to the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

North Korea and COM:SIG?

How do we deal with signatures from North Korea? There is no entry at COM:SIG, but the North Korean copyright law says that calligraphy is copyrightable. I'm not sure if this also means that a normal signature is copyrightable. Should we delete the two images above? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to side with keeping signatures unless we have some specific indication they may be copyrightable, such as calligraphy or the UK situation (which isn't even certain, just more possible than elsewhere). Most of the time, I can't imagine writing your own name in your own handwriting really involves any creativity. If someone's signature is really a drawing, that could be an exception too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a link to the relevant law? Calligraphy is a form of art in Korea, so unless it specifically mentions personal signatures I can't imagine that just by "calligraphy" it would be referring to that. Osiris (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You can read the law here, but Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-DPRKGov suggests that North Korea has got a new copyright law and that the law on Wikisource is outdated. --Stefan4 (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

File:UIAA logo.svg e File:UIAA Safety Label logo color.svg

Hi, I would like to know if these files are ok. The logos are from UIAA (http://www.theuiaa.org) It's a registered trademark (see http://www.trademarkia.com/uiaa-79048560.html) used on a lot of climbing equipment. I don't know if Commons:Threshold of originality is correct here. UIAA has also published a "Brand Manual": http://theuiaa.org/upload_area/files/1/UIAA_LOGO_GUIDELINES.pdf Thanks in advance. --Rotpunkt (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple deletions without recourse or explanation

A number of images were deleted yesterday (7/5/12) under unclear circumstances. I have requested explanation by the deleting admin on their talk page, but without success. These are a few of the questions briefly, all related to "publicity stills" (see also film still copyright):

  • Admin states that an image showing the reverse side of the uncropped photos must also be provided, in addition to the front. They claim that "no verification is possible" without seeing it;
  • All the deleted images were declared as public domain, yet most were deleted because they lacked "permission or license" by the owner;
  • Images were deleted because, like most publicity photos, no photographer was stated, and only the studio or other anonymous source was given (ie. eBay, auction house, etc.);
  • Many images, such as File:Anouk Aimee - scene.JPG were deleted without notice or recourse, although it too was uploaded as an uncropped original studio image, which even showed the studio's photo number imprinted on the front;
  • Of the images that were tagged before the deletions, they were tagged with Template:No permission since, which does not allow for any response or comment, seemingly having the effect of a "declaration."

There are now multiple biographies that have had their lead image deleted without warning or clear rationales. Can someone attempt to clarify any of those questions? Thanks.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is common practice to upload the back of the image first and then over-write it with the front. This shows that there is no copyright on either side of the picture.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
While that's not a bad idea, it is by no means common practice. I've uploaded some 30,000 photos here, and this is the first time I've heard of the idea. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
After looking at en:Film still and a few film stills via photoshelter.com (which has conflicting copyright claims), I would say Commons needs to be very diligent in determining the copyright status is as claimed. Wikipedia's article quotes lawyer Nancy Wolff as saying that it "has been assumed that these images are most likely in the public domain" and that without "knowing where the photos came from, or what long lost parent may appear and claim the 'orphaned work,' licensing the work becomes risky business". Should we require uploaders to show they have searched the United States Copyright Office for registration renewals? For example I found a very few renewals for Marlon Brando images from 1950 and 1955 (not on Commons as far as I can tell), but the site warns you that works "registered prior to 1978 may be found only in the Copyright Public Records Reading Room." This Wikipedia article section lists a few ways to check for films but they appear quite time consuming and probably expensive. (About uploading the backs of photos, I've only read about that practice for old postcards.) -84user (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Instead of visiting the Copyright Public Records Reading Room, just go to this website and read the copyright records on the Internet. Remember that renewals are made 28 years after the initial publication and just look at the correct year. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Just including a word re: some were renewed the year before they were to expire, so checking the year it was to expire and the year prior to that is a good idea. We hope (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Those links to the older hard-copy scans was brought to my attention a while back regarding Life magazine, and have since come in handy to check status when there's doubt. It's definitely saved me time, gas, and parking fees not having to go to a copyright depository that has the actual hard-copy annuals. Yet a number of images were recently tagged by an admin claiming, "There's no way to ensure the license is valid if one doesn't know what's on the backside of such a photo," and supported by another Commons admin, "how it is possible for you to know that there is no copyright notice without having a look at the backside?" [7]
So instead of requiring a look at the back of every photo, not common for online stills sold at various auctions, and rarely used to print such notices anyhow, why not simply require a search? Anyone in doubt later can do their own search. For some subsequent images where I indicated that no renewal was found, I included a link to the hard-copy scan page. But it still seems logical to consider copyright expert opinions as a basis: "Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Because in general, a search is not going to tell you what you need to know. A photograph could easily be first published in a magazine and be protected by the copyright of that magazine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
As per the above link, there are more files here that have been checked and should go into deletion review. Shall I start nominating those? We hope (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

1932 Bamboo Isle

Could someone check my suspicion that the 1932 film Betty Boop's Bamboo Isle is still under United States copyright?

In 2010 I uploaded the film from archive.org but I now suspect it is not public domain (as claimed there) because it appears to have been renewed in 1959 and http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm states that for works published 1923 through 1963 "with notice" where "the copyright was renewed" means a copyright term of "95 years after publication date" applies.

Starting from http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ I browsed to this page and searched for Bamboo Isle:

  • there's a 1959 renewal (10Nov59, R246315) here on page 92 and Paramount Publix Corp. is linked at page 106 and U.M. & M. TV Corp. at page 108

Unless I have misunderstood something it appears all the files in that category should be deleted (to be undeleted not before 2028 I guess). -84user (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the notice here makes it copyrightable for 95 years since publication. Now proposed for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Betty Boop's Bamboo Isle. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible South Park copyvio

Is the animated GIF File:Public domain simpson's paradox.gif a copyvio? The figures seem to me to strongly resemble the style of w:South Park, but I'm not sure if they're indentifiable characters from it (it's years since I watched it), or if that matters. Qwfp (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I cropped out one of the characters, and Google Images got some sort-of-exact matches on one of them here and here. If you look, each of those images share certain (exact) elements with one of the characters in the animated gif, but not all of them. One has the exact same hair outline, the other has the exact same shirt outlines, one has the exact mouth, the other has the same eyebrows, that sort of thing. Which leads me to believe that the images were generated from this website, not associated with the show but has the ability to generate images in the south park style. So, likely not actual characters from the show, and not necessarily derivative of a South Park copyright (would depend on how exactly some of the elements were copied). On the other hand, some elements are direct copies of graphics from that website, and the site's FAQ makes clear that commercial use is forbidden. It's possible the author found the images somewhere else erroneously labeled with a different copyright license (maybe even on Commons itself, who knows -- I'm sure there are some we haven't noticed). While it's a great and informative animation... I think there is an issue, unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The author acknowledges the graphics were obtained from sp-studio.de at the end of the gif. Graphics not PD unfortunately. Froggerlaura (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012. You have new messages at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Public domain simpson's paradox.gif.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Betty Boop copyright renewals in 1959

Following my post above at 1932 Bamboo Isle here are other copyright renewals in 1959 for Betty Boop films:

  • 1951 through to 1958 = no renewals found
  • 1959 had several renewals:
    • BETTY BOOP FOR PRESIDENT, 2Nov32; M3629. U. M. & M. TV Corp. (PWH); 10Nov59; R246323.
    • THE BETTY BOOP LIMITED, 11Jul32; M3415. U. M. & M. TV Corp. (PWH); 10Nov59; R246294.
    • BETTY BOOP M.D. 1Sep32 M3490. U. M. & M. TV Corp. (PWH); 10Nov59; R246310.
    • BETTY BOOP'S BAMBOO ISLE, 22Sep32; M3525. U. M. & M. TV Corp. (PWH); 10Nov59; R246315.
    • BETTY BOOP'S BIZZY BEE, 18Aug32, M3458. U. M. & M. TV Corp. (PWH); 10Nov59; R246301
    • BETTY BOOP'S MUSEUM, 22Dec32; M3726. U. M. & M. TV Corp. (PWH); 28Dec59; R248101.
    • BETTY BOOP'S UPS AND DOWNS, 13Oct32; M3567. U. M. & M. TV Corp. (PWH); 10Nov59; R246319.
    • BOOP-OOP-A-DOOP, 16Jan32; M3029. U. M. & M. TV Corp. (PWH); 10Nov59; R246270.

If I finish my search from 1960 through to 1965 I'll post the results, but so far for 1951 to 1965 I could not find any renewal for the 1934 film Poor Cinderella. -84user (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that even if there was no renewal for that specific film, there might still be a copyright on Betty Boop (as a character) that prevents the film from being fully free (see, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/02#Disney characters deletion requests). cmadler (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
A 1934 film would have to be renewed in either 1961 or 1962. You had to wait at least 27 years from publication to renew, and could renew until the end of the 28th year. [The ability to go to the end of the 28th year was the subject of a law or regulation change at some point, but best to always assume it.] However, even if not renewed, the film is probably still a derivative work of the Betty Boop character, and should not be distributed. Elements original to the film which don't involve derivatives of pre-existing works could be uploaded though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Why would Betty Boop be under copyright? 84user doesn't mention Dizzy Dishes (where she first appeared, albeit as a poodle), and series had several pre-1932 appearances by her. She originated as a film character, so we don't have to worry about a literary copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
If the cartoon where the character first appeared is no longer under copyright, then yes, that makes a difference. If there are any character aspects first added in later still-copyrighted cartoons, those could still be issues, but that seems unlikely. Wasn't aware of Betty Boop's full history; just noting that lack of renewal may not be enough if derivative of a still-existing copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A renewal for Dizzy Dishes by Paramount Publix Corp. appears in 1957 here. As to copyright registrations for the character, all I found is a 1986 registration for "Baby Boop; cartoon character derived from Betty Boop." here (Copyright Document: V2176P422-423). There is also a new registration for a colorized version of the 1933 Popeye the Sailor film here (Popeye the sailor : [no.] 158, Popeye the sailor with Betty Boop), but its 1961 renewal does not mention Betty Boop (here). I found that searching for "Betty Boop" does not find all Betty Boop films, for example, the 1959 renewal of the 1932 "Stopping the Show" did not mention Betty Boop. I am also not finding renewals for "Betty in Blunderland" and "Betty Boop's Rise to Fame". -84user (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A character copyright is created as part of the work where they first appear. You can't create a character with a single work like a poster, but a series of images (like a cartoon) or something like a book is enough. So, the renewal on the first work is the important one; the character itself is not registered or renewed as a separate entity. Later works using the character are then all derivative. If a later work adds expression -- say, a novel sequel adds a bunch of backstory to a character -- that aspect can still be copyrighted even if the original character has expired (this is normal treatment of derivative works; the copyright in those just covers the additional expression made in the derivative). The Baby Boop link you found is a "recorded document", not a registration, which is basically a note to the Copyright Office that something in regards to the copyright has changed -- typically a transfer, or perhaps the address of an author, or something like that. See 17 USC 205. These are simply entered into the records by the Copyright Office; there is no check for validity or anything like that since it's just general information being recorded. They have the prefix "V" in the document number (though careful as the "VA" prefix is visual arts, which is a registration and not a document). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Animal Photos under CC3.0?

Hello. What do you think about this resource? Are the images eligible for transferring at commons? If so, what template should I use to license them? --Gikü (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like most are cc-by. If you click each image and hit the 'more' button it shows the complete CC license and how to attribute.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If you lick the "more" link, near the top of the page they have the link to the original image on Flickr. They are collecting various images from Flickr, so be sure to credit the Flickr user as the author and not that site. You can use the regular Flickr upload tools for them (see Commons:Flickr#Uploading images), provided they are CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. I'm not sure we can take that site as evidence if the original Flickr image is not currently CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, but maybe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

German coat of arms symbol status

Stamps of Germany (Berlin) 1979, MiNr 598.jpgWappen Deutsches Reich - Reichswappen (Klein).jpgZDK-Label.jpg

Hi, in Category:German stamps review there are plenty of stamps like File:Stamps of Germany (Berlin) 1979, MiNr 598.jpg (first image), similar to coat of arms like File:Wappen Deutsches Reich - Reichswappen (Klein).jpg (second image). There are also plenty with the GDR coat of arms, like File:ZDK-Label.jpg (third image). What, if any, PD tag applies to these? More broadly, what is the status of {{PD-Coa-Germany}} following the German stamp decision (cf Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review)? Rd232 (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I had always been a little uncomfortable with calling stamps "official documents" as they often involve some pre-existing private copyrights... but COAs are a bit different. The usual situation is that specific renderings can have their own copyright, though the general design is an idea usually not protected by copyright (Commons:Coats of arms). I suppose the PD-Coa-Germany tag has been given more doubt than it previously had, but there is a lot of discussion on Template talk:PD-Coa-Germany, and it seems the situations are still distinguishable (copyright in official COAs would create some "interesting" licensing requirements, and other oddities). I think I'd lean towards keeping that tag, so it could still apply, though if the COA depiction on the stamp appears to be different than the official one, it may be a different situation. The top COA of File:Stamps of Germany (Berlin) 1979, MiNr 598.jpg is likely PD due to age; unsure about the bottom one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Designed by de:Karl-Tobias Schwab (who died in 1967) in the year 1926. --Rosenzweig τ 17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so that is the official rendition of the coat of arms then, since 1950. Unless we change our mind on PD-Coa-Germany, that portion would seem to be OK as well. Unsure if the rest of the stamp would qualify for copyright, but it's getting thinner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kevinestevez162

This user doesn't understand copyright I don't think. Four uploads seem to be copyvio to me. Special:Contributions/Kevinestevez162 Is there a template for their user page we can use that covers this? Admin may wish to delete their uploads as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, The right place for this message is Commons:Administrators' noticeboard or one of its subpage. I warned him, and tagged copyvios. Yann (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be deleled now.

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Files in Category:Barack Obama "Joker" poster‎

Do comment at "Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Barack Obama "Joker" poster‎". Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Old photograph published in recent book

Moved from Village Pump:

I thought I'd get some advice on an image before uploading. I want to scan a higher quality image for an article on Paulding Farnham to replace a poor quality but PD image. The image was published in 2000 as part of John Loring's book on Farnham, but the picture is of Farnham's 1889 exhibitor's photo ID pass for the Paris Exposition Universelle (the photo is like this one [8]). Is this old photo regarded as a previously unpublished/private collection photo or since it technically was exhibited in 1889 can it be uploaded? No author is credited in book and I assume the picture was taken in France or in the US shortly before the Exposition. Froggerlaura ribbit 20:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is some agreement that a scan of an old postcard or other old picture is not a new creative work protected by copyrigth. However I prefer to avoid discussions and prefer to scan an original postcard in my possession. Certainly not to scan from recent books and current editions.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition of Publication

I looked this up for the US earlier. Is there a page Commons:publication by country? I was referring to a tourist photo that was taken in 1919 and sold to the tourists as a keepsake by an ostrich farm. File:SFLtI.jpg There is a long discussion about here Commons:Help_desk#Copyright_help_regarding_File:SFLtI.jpg The post above this one has a similar issue. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of such a page. I don't think we even have one explaining the concept of publication in US copyright law. I think that would be a much higher priority, given the centrality of publication there (see Commons:Hirtle chart). In most other countries, I believe publication isn't so important (except perhaps for anonymous works). We do have Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, which deals with publication and its implications for such artworks. --Avenue (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The U.S. definition of "publication" in regards to copyright law, particularly before 1978, is a very convoluted topic with lots of technicalities. However, selling copies is about as definite a situation as you get -- if copies were sold to tourists, that was published. If you really want to understand the issues, there is an article by a legal scholar (Thomas Cotter) here which gets into the definition in depth. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The sale of a single copy, as in this case, didn't usually constitute publication, did it? This appears to be a case of a tourist site taking posed photographs of visitors and then selling them to those visitors -- no single photo seems to have been offered generally. I would take this to be very similar to en:portrait photography, where the only person who is ever going to buy a particular photograph is the subject (or subjects) of that photograph. cmadler (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, the sale of a single copy could -- if it was offered for sale to the general public. (Does not even require an actual sale, just the offering, by today's definition). If they were not selling the negative, it's not the only copy anyways. So yes, that could certainly constitute publication. For the situation you describe there, that may be a little different, since it was not a pre-existing work which was for sale. While court cases are all over the map, one particularly consistent point was if a copy was sold -- if so, that was basically always publication, as they have exploited the work. Giving away copies could also be publication, unless perhaps there was an implied restriction on further distribution (courts have gone both ways; some required explicit instructions to not distribute further). So, if this was considered to be the sale of a copy, and there would obviously be no implied or explicit restrictions on further distribution since I can't imagine the photographer would expect to further exploit the work themselves, then it would be publication I think yes. If it was considered more a commissioned work where the purchasing party really owned the copyright from the outset, as sort of a private photograph of themselves, then it may have possibly been unpublished until they made it available to someone else. It is similar to portrait photos, but not entirely the same thing. I get the sense that a situation like that was never tested in court, as I can't imagine a photographer trying to sue over something like that. So unless the purchasing party is considered the copyright owner, I would be surprised if that was not publication.
In 1956, Melrose Nimmer made this definition based on case law: publication occurs when by consent of the copyright owner the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur. So selling the original to the general public would certainly qualify under that definition, and many courts cited Nimmer's definition thereafter. An oft-cited opinion in White v Kimmel defined limited publication (the type where a copyright notice was not necessary) as publication which communicates the contents of a manuscript to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale, is considered a "limited publication," which does not result in loss of the author's common-law right to his manuscript; but that the circulation must be restricted both as to persons and purpose, or it can not be called a private or limited publication.[9] If something was distributed to the general public (i.e. not a limited group), or there was no implied restriction on further distribution, then it was usually considered generally published. The difference here is that it is a custom work provided to one person only, although the service was available to the general public. But... when there was an actual sale involved, and further distribution was not limited, it seems like it should be publication. There may be some argument that it was a privately commissioned work, with the copyright owned by the commissioning party, and therefore only they had the right to publish it thereafter. There is enough gray area there that a judge would really take all the small details of a given situation, and probably rule on whatever felt right, balancing the interests of both parties. I can't imagine a judge would afford give the photographer a limited publication decision in that situation, though I could see them protecting the pictured person if it was more a privacy issue for them and they did not want it distributed. But if the photo has become voluntarily public at some point, that may be the end of potential rights on the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I suppose an advertisement is also a publication? (Old advertisements can be useful information)Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for your wisdom Carl. As to the OP should we add a section or article about publication versus creation dates by country somewhere. If I understand correctly some countries use publication date and others use creation date for copyright expiry?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios on and on

There was a deletion request in April Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Borovv with clear proof that there are copyvios and this guy still can upload copyvios (Special:Contributions/Borovv) as if nothing ever happend? Meanwhile I think Commons only pretends to be legal. It should be closed down by officials. --88.78.118.130 22:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a little patience. Give him enough rope to hang himself. Its better that the community takes its time and gather the evidence.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Rhazes.jpg

The file is licensed as {{PD-Art}}. At the same time, the image is just a cropped image of this one. It is not really obvious that the creator died 70 years ago, but the big version contains some info in I guess Arabic at the bottom. If I am not mistaken, the end of the last line (which is on the left) contains the year of the image creation, 1335 (in which case the image is copyrighted). Could someone decifer the inscription please and see whether it contains any info useful to determine the copyright status? The initial discussion in Russian was here. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the Wellcome library has another image of the same subject. http://images.wellcome.ac.uk/indexplus/image/V0018133.html They credit the painter in this one who died in 1934. They still wish to have a cc-by-nc license though. http://images.wellcome.ac.uk/indexplus/result.html?*sform=wellcome-images&_IXACTION_=query&%3Did_ref=S0001954&_IXSPFX_=templates/t has no credit to the creator with the same license. They probably don't know who it is. They claim to have collections that date back to the 1300's. I would assume that 1335 is the date of creation and therefore copyright would be expired.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
1335 in the Islamic calendar would be around 1917, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. But I guess 1335 is the creation date from Hejdra, in which case it might be still copyrighted. If the painter died in 1934 it is PD though.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Use Of Image

Hello,

I am new here and I am trying to find where the archived permission to use an image is. This is the image I want to use.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jon_sunflower_2007.JPG

The archived permission is not public; they are there as a double-check on the identity of the author, so that we believe the licenses granted on the image page do in fact come from the copyright owner. So, presumably, the permission to use is either the GFDL license, or CC-BY-SA-3.0. It looks like the author did not give their real name, so User:Menerbes/Wikimedia Commons would probably be the attribution, and you also have to note the license wherever you use it -- the terms should be linked from the permission templates on File:Jon_sunflower_2007.JPG. Note that the permission extends just to the copyright; if you are using the image in an advertising context you would still need permission from the pictured person ({{Personality rights}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yacht issue stamps

en:Yacht issue is a detailed article on a series of German stamps featuring the imperial yacht. It mentions no author, and I can't find any mention elsewhere. Can we label these stamps (Category:SMY Hohenzollern on stamps) {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or {{Anonymous-EU}} (and what is the difference?)? Rd232 (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There's some old provision in regards to German law which makes anonymous works in essence have perpetual copyright. (Technically, it's life+70 years, but due to the nature of anonymous works, we can't know when the author died, and he could have conceivably made the work when he was 10 and then lived on for 110 years, so for all intents and purposes, it's perpetual copyright.) -- Liliana-60 (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If true, that would have been superseded by the EU copyright directives I'd think, at least from an international perspective (we wouldn't recognize the UK's perpetual copyright on the King James bible either). There is apparently no author mentioned on stamps themselves, so it would appear to be published anonymously, and it also appears that no author is known. so I'd go with {{Anonymous-EU}}. Not sure there is a difference between that template and PD-EU-no_author_disclosure as currently written, though the EU directives do have two slightly different provisions for when the original copyright is owned by a legal person (i.e. corporation); in those cases the author had to be disclosed on the first publication to get 70pma, otherwise the term was 70 years from publication. For anonymous works by a natural person, the full 70 pma term can be obtained by making the identity known at any time during the first 70 years, not just on the first publication. I don't think Germany has the legal person provision as part of their law (since I think all copyrights are initially owned by the natural person), so that latter provision would not apply. But if the author was not identified by 1970 or so, it would seem to be PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, German Wikipedia says that law is still in effect for pictures created before the EU Copyright Directive entered into effect. I don't know much more about it though. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Where does German WP say that? Rd232 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
de:Anonymes Werk (Urheberrecht) for anybody who can read German. For all works created before 1995-07-01, the older German law (§ 66 UrhG old version) may still apply if the new version would shorten the term of protection. The tricky thing is: according to the old version of § 66, the term of 70 years after publication for anonymous works did not apply to "Werke der Bildenden Kunst" (works of the visual arts) like drawings and paintings, for those the regular term of 70 years after the death of the creator applied. Wait, you might say, the whole point of anonymous works is that we do not know who the creator is, so how should we know when the 70 years after his or her death are up? Well, that is your problem, the law (old version) doesn't help you with that. Even if the anonymous work in question is, say, a photograph (which is not a "Werk der Bildenden Kunst") and thus the term of 70 years after publication applies, you cannot really know if the work is anonymous at all. For the old version of § 66 had provisions that made it very easy to de-anonymize a work. All it takes is to name the true name (or known pseudonym) of the creator at any "öffentliche Wiedergabe" (public rendition) of the work, be it in print or at a public lecture, whatever; then the normal term of 70 years pma applies. So how can you assure that any work really is anonymous? Can you be absolutely certain the creator's true name or known pseudonym was never mentioned anywhere, in print, at a public lecture, etc.? The answer is of course that you cannot. And that is the main reason the German Wikipedia doesn't use license tags based on those paragraphs for anonymous works. --Rosenzweig τ 16:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Does the German Wikipedia use a 100-year rule of thumb? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100, called the pragmatic rule (de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Pragmatische Regelung bei Bildern, die älter als 100 Jahre sind.) This is not based on law, though, only pragmatism. --Rosenzweig τ 16:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm, OK. We don't use that 100-year thing, but in general, we at least want to see that the original publication was anonymous, which increases the odds greatly that it has remained anonymous. If so, and we have no further information on the author, we have tended to tag images {{Anonymous-EU}}. Images of unknown origin, even if over 100 years old, we often don't accept (though once it gets to 120-140 years, it can be different). That may simply be another sort of pragmatism, given the very indefinite law. As with any work, if more accurate information comes to light (such as an identified author) then we would reconsider. It's never going to be possible to remove all doubt though -- after all, who's to say that the currently-anonymous author didn't slip across the border into Denmark and publish it there first, changing the country of origin, or a zillion other highly-unlikely-but-possible scenarios. But it does sound as though an author making themselves known even after 70 years could affect things. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
US law offers a safe harbor for 120 years. [10] says that in 2010, the oldest published British work was published in 1859; in 2011 it was 1865, but that expired by the end of 2011. In practice, a work that was published 151 years ago may still be under copyright in a life+70 realm, but in 2011 it was only 146 years, and those are the extremes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
According to § 134 UrhG, works published before 1966 by a legal entity under public law (such as the Imperial Post) went into the public domain 70 years after publication if the author isn't mentioned in the work. Thus these stamps are in the public domain, I think. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure stamps are covered by this exception. The German Wikipedia has a tag for these cases, de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-§134, based on a combination of several laws, mostly § 3 LUG. That law, the LUG, was for Werke der Literatur und der Tonkunst and Abbildungen wissenschaftlicher oder technischer Art (literary and audio works and images of a scientific or technical nature); for photos and works of the visual arts there was another law, the de:Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie. We use said tag for photos taken from specific books (Abgeordnetenhandbücher) and maps, which are thought to fall into the "literary work" or "scientific/technical images" category. I don't quite see how stamps could be considered a literary work, and these drawings don't look very scientific or technical. --Rosenzweig τ 12:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
You are right, in this case we do not need a combination with LUG, but with KUG. § 134 UrhG says: „Ist nach den bisherigen Vorschriften eine juristische Person als Urheber eines Werkes anzusehen, so sind für die Berechnung der Dauer des Urheberrechts die bisherigen Vorschriften anzuwenden.“ One of these „bisherige Vorschriften“ is § 5 KUG: „Juristische Personen des öffentlichen Rechts, die als Herausgeber ein Werk erscheine lassen, das den Namen des Urhebers nicht angibt, werden, wenn nicht ein anderes vereinbart ist, als Urheber des Werkes angesehen.“ This means: If the name of the author isn't mentioned on a stamp issued before 1966, then the legal entity of public law who issued the stamp is considered the author. And § 25 KUG said: „Steht einer juristischen Person nach §§ 5, 6 das Urheberrecht zu, so endigt der Schutz mit dem Ablauf von fünfzig Jahren seit dem Erscheinen des Werkes.“ -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That sounds promising. Some early stamps do name an individual author, but most don't. So this position would cover most stamps issued before 1966. Should we draft a new license template? Rd232 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Not until we've sorted out the Herausgeber problem mentioned below. At least not for stamps. --Rosenzweig τ 21:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm. There's another problem: "als Herausgeber ein Werk erscheinen lassen" means, as I see it, that said juristische Person des öffentlichen Rechts must be named as Herausgeber somewhere in or on that work. At least that's how we handle the cases of the Vorlage:Bild-PD-§134 tag at de.wp. I don't see the Reichspost mentioned as "Herausgeber" anywhere on these stamps. --Rosenzweig τ 13:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Reichspost was named on some early stamps, see Briefmarken-Jahrgang 1889 der Deutschen Reichspost for example. But why do you think that the Herausgeber must be named on the work? In case of „Deutsches Reich“ stamps it's obvious that they were issued be a legal entity of public law, because the Reich itself and also Reichspost were such entities. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Named, yes, but not as Herausgeber. How do you want to determine that anyone, be it a person or an entity, is a Herausgeber? Simply by assuming it? That sounds not very solid to me, you need to have some proof, and having that attribute in print on the work itself is rather convincing proof. --Rosenzweig τ 14:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It is, but that does not mean that no other proof is possible. I see no reason to doubt that Reichspost stamps were issued by Reichspost. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
They were issued by the Reichspost of course. But does that make the Reichspost a Herausgeber in a legal sense? At de.wp I gave you several links to court sentences. If you read those sentences, you'll get an idea what courts think of the characteristics of an Herausgeber. --Rosenzweig τ 14:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't see the official stamp issuer not being the publisher; it sounds ridiculous (which doesn't mean it's impossible...). I can't find the links you mention, though I found de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Alte_Briefmarken_-_ein_Fall_f.C3.BCr_.C2.A7_134_Satz_2_UrhG.3F. Rd232 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The links are two sections further down: Landgericht München, Oberlandesgericht München. And yes, many things in laws and court decisions do sound somewhat ridiculous to anybody unencumbered with legal terminology. --Rosenzweig τ 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I've got an inquiry out to some specialist GPS (German Philatelic Society) stamp collectors who may be able to confirm if there is a known designer of these stamps. Ww2censor (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. You could also ask about some other common stamps that have no author identified as far as I know: de:Hindenburg-Medaillon and the 1941+ Hitler series (Category:Adolf Hitler on stamps). (I'm sure there are others, but I've seen these in Category:German stamps review a lot.) Rd232 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The Hindenburg-Medaillon stamps were designed by Karl Goetz (1875–1950) (see [[:de:Hindenburg-Medaillon#Motiv und Druckverfahren|]]). The Hitler stamps were designed by Richard Klein (1890–1967) using a photo by de:Heinrich Hoffmann (Fotograf) (1885–1957) (see Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler). -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Rd232 (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
§ 4 LUG says: „Besteht ein Werk aus den getrennten Beiträgen Mehrerer (Sammelwerk), so wird für das Werk als Ganzes der Herausgeber als Urheber angesehen. Ist ein solcher nicht genannt, so gilt der Verleger als Herausgeber.“ So if the Herausgeber isn't mentioned, then the Verleger is considered to be the author of a Sammelwerk.
But a stamp isn't a Sammelwerk. Furthermore, LUG doesn't apply here, it's KUG. And § 5 KUG says: „Juristische Personen des öffentlichen Rechts, die als Herausgeber ein Werk erscheinen lassen, das den Namen des Urhebers nicht angibt, werden, wenn nicht ein anderes vereinbart ist, als Urheber des Werkes angesehen.“ (A similar rule exists in § 3 LUG.) This rule doesn't say that the editor must be mentioned in the work.
So the only thing we have to check now is: Did a legal entity of public law publish the stamps?
The 1969 Gesetz über das Postwesen says in § 3: „Die Befugnis, Postwertzeichen auszugeben [...], ist dem Bundesminister für das Post- und Fernmeldewesen vorbehalten.“ I am quite sure that a similar rule was valid before 1969, but I don't have access to the library now in which I could look this up. Maybe on Monday I can. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That sounds promising - though the wenn nicht ein anderes vereinbart ist clause (if nothing else is agreed) is a potential problem, since strictly speaking it requires proving a negative. But if you can confirm the same rule applied earlier then we're starting to get somewhere. Rd232 (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
From the official rationale of the 1969 Gesetz über das Postwesen (Bundestagsdrucksache V/3295, S. 12): Die Befugnis des Bundesministers für das Post- und Fernmeldewesen, Postwertzeichen auszugeben, ergibt sich aus dem ihm durch § 1 Abs. 2 PostVwG erteilten Auftrag, die öffentlichen Rechte und Pflichten des Bundes auf dem Gebiet des Post- und Fernmeldewesens wahrzunehmen. § 3 Abs. 1 Satz 1 des Entwurfs stellt klar, daß es sich hierbei um ein Alleinrecht handelt.
I think we have come far enough to draft a template at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Super. Let's do that. Rd232 (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
See de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Vorschlag: neue Lizenzvorlage Vorlage:Bild-PD-§134-KUG. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Threshold of originality in horticulture

Hello, I've recently uploaded

They were taken from a non-public place (a fence is around the area). Taking photos was allowed but how about the copyright of the "garden-designer"? Do you think it's innovative enough? (It's in Germany, part of an old Baroque residence; I think this particular part of the garden was redesigned by a modern artist.

Thanks for your thoughts. -- Rillke(q?) 19:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a map or garden design plan would be copyrightable, but I'm not sure a garden itself would constitute a suitable fixation. Here's an article about a US court case (7th Circuit) that determined that a living garden is not copyrightable, but of course, German law might be different. cmadler (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like plants playing chess checkers? If that is the case then the threshold on a variation of a chessboard and adding plants may not be met in Germany. Isn't the German TOO bar higher than USA?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure about TOO here, because although the checker pattern itself is fairly simple, you then have it repeated four times marking the corners of this space, then a whole different pattern on the four sides, then some sort of sculpute/statue/fountain in the center. Then there are the hedges surrounding this area. So I think altogether it may be enough to pass the TOO bar, but I still have a question as to whether German copyright covers a living garden. cmadler (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It seems that one can't say for sure it's not subject to copyright, so let's play it safe. -- Rillke(q?) 17:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rillke(q?) 17:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright templets.

I am a contrinutor as of January 2012. So far I have incurred a lot of probems with selecting the correct one for my family photos, etc. I would like to read up on different copyright templets on wikimedia e.g. PD-old, Anonymous-EU, so that I do not make more mistakes in the future. Please direct me to the page where I can find them all. Can not find this by myself ? Ist there a help facility on wikimedia ? Roman Kurowski (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Commons:Licensing help? Category:PD license tags may help as well. There are probably thousands here. If you find one similar you could try the category it is in like the PD one I listed above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much !!! Roman Kurowski (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You are very welcome.
If you're uploading family photos, PD-Old and Anonymous-EU will be relevant in vanishingly rare situations. If you're uploading your own photos, read {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and {{Cc-by-3.0}} and {{Cc-zero}} and decide which one matches what you want. If you're uploading someone else's photos, then you need to ask them what they want and make sure it's clear they're the author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, if you are uploading family photos, keep in mind that {{Anonymous-EU}} usually is insufficient, since family photos tend to be unpublished. Photos have to be free in both the United States and the source country and if you can't identify the photographer (e.g. because you don't know if it was taken by your father or by your mother), note that the photo remains copyrighted in the United States for 120 years since the photo was taken, but only for 70 years in the European Union. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
We do have a {{PD-heirs}} template (and {{GFDL-heirs}}) but I'm not sure we have versions of the common CC templates. Maybe there could be a {{Heirs}} wrapper template, sort of like {{Self}}, to make it more explicit? In any event, the "self" template could still be used in combination with the CC license(s) if you are the copyright owner (necessary for the heirs templates anyways). You could just note that you inherited the copyright in the permission field or something like that, to explain why you own copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have inherited a portrait picture (60 zm x 50 cm) of a great grandfather (picture taken in 1916-1920) but I do not know if the picture has been published ? I know it was hanging in the office of the Land Owners' Association in Sokal and then after the death of my great grandfather move to the manor house of my grandfather in Leszczków. I have not been able to identify the photografer who to the picture (I am sure my great grandfather paid for it). Only the photo studio is indicated on the picture "Rembrandt, Lwów". Thus, I own the copyright if it still exists (as na heir of the man who ordered and paid for it) and am the owner since 1994. Is there a license that I can use or I should just give up to publish this picture (author unknown, I am the legal owner of this one and only portrait). I am not a heir of the photographer, who is unkown. Is there a licence suitable for this situation ???
  • The British definition is clear Template:PD-UK-unknown. "This UK artistic work, of which the author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry, is in the public domain because it is one of the following: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1942; ..... "
  • Anonymous-PD note reads: "Note: In Germany and possibly other countries, ...". Is Poland included in possible other countries ?
  • If the photo was taken in Lwów in 1916 or 1917 or before Nov. 11, 1918 there was no Poland. It was then the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Which law applies to photos taken in the Austro-Hungerian Empire ? Polish, Austrian or Hungarian ? I have quite a few of these I would like to publish. Roman Kurowski (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

FOP Andorra

i took a picture of this sculpture by Dali (similar File:Outside Dali Museum.JPG) in Andorra. Is there FOP in Andorra so i can upload the picture? Commons:Freedom of panorama does not mention Andorra. -- Cherubino (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • http://www.govern.ad/ is the .gov website. They speak Catalan although Spanish, Portuguese, and French are also commonly spoken. Someone could try emailing them in one of those languages or see if their site has the info about FOP after a google translate. It would be nice to add since tourism is a big thing there and we may get more images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I looked through the law on Andorra, and couldn't find any exception for FOP in their 1999 copyright law. However, that law is not retroactive. I don't know what law they used before that date, but they were a UCC member, if that is important. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In Andorran law (http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=187689#LinkTarget_8) I can't see any FOP exception.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course, since the law is not retroactive, it is still possible that pre-1999 works are free. But without having found that law, we can't know. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
If an FOP law existed before 1999 wouldn't it cover only pictures taken before that date?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am confused as usual. Does the law state now that FOP is allowed? Meaning can one take pictures of 3D works without violating the copyright of the 3D work if the work is on permanant display in a public place?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. The current law says no, but it is not retroactive. A previous law may have had FOP, which would make things complicated. After googling around, I found that before 1999, Andorra had a decree from 1971. I haven't been successful in finding it on the Internet, however. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
If by no you mean that they do not have FOP since 1999? In that case I would say that any picture taken since 1999 would not qualify as FOP and be in violation of copyright?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The law says that works of art are protected now. It does not mention any exception for works made before the current law was passed. Then pre-1999 works are protected.
Article 5 says what you can't do with anyone else's work. I'm not sure how many points are implied in "distribute a photographic image of the work to the public", but last point forbids "any other public communication of the work". By distributing now a pre-1999 photo of a work, you are communicating the work now, and this is forbidden now.
Then, I think FOP is not OK in Andorra, despite of when the work of art was made and the photo was taken.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What about Monaco and San Marino? --84.61.167.13 13:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest discussing the issue at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama in order to improve Commons:Freedom of panorama.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What if my cat was born in Canada and I take it to the US and freeze it as a 3D sculpture. Then I take it to Andorra and run it over. This now makes it 2D. I then take it to Italy and take a picture of it. I develop the film in France and have the images mailed to my next stop in Germany. I then go to the UK and scan the images to my laptop. Then I go back to Canada and someone steals my laptop. They then upload the images to commons as non-threshold of originality in the source country?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And those who steal your laptop upload images from the jail in Guantanamo seventy years after the death of your cat.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an interesting and challenging question. At least, smashing your frozen cat and taking a picture of it is over the threshold of originality in any country. The rest of the story depends on your country of origin and your pictures of your cat are protected according to your country law - not where your cat was born, smashed or photographed. For example, if you are from Afghanistan, your country doesn't have any copyright legislation (as far as I know). Then your photographs will be in public domain in all the world, and the people that stole your laptop can upload them without any fear about copyright - despite they should be concerned about breaching a lot of laws by stealing your laptop and accessing to its content.
Anyway, due to your cruelty against your cat, you probably deserve to be stolen a laptop or something worse. And beware of Andorran law about importation of frozen cats.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Your photos are unpublished, as you have never published them yourself (it must be done with authorization with the copyright owner to be a valid publication). Country of origin of the photo is still determined by what country you are a national of, or perhaps where you are living. There is no copyright on the cat. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the cat is copyrightable - after being frozen and smashed purposely to make a work of art from it. For example, en:The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living is basically a copyrighted dead shark.--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If the cat was arranged or posed in a particular way, maybe -- and then just on that. No human creativity went into creating the basic form of the cat. Same as that shark. If you take the work there as a whole, including its environment and container, then the combination is probably copyrightable. The shark itself, no (and in fact the shark has apparently been replaced once). Maybe you could also get a copyright on the arrangement of the pieces of the cat, if that was purposefully done. But not on the form of the cat itself. Copyright must be the result of human creative expression (or I guess in the UK, it must be original, and the result of skill, labor, and judgement). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
We should re-write this as an essay on copyright. TOO, FOP, etc. I started to prep my cat.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the 'no coyright in Afghanistan' retro-active? In that case is that famous image of the girl taken there in 1983(?) public domain?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the new Afghanistan law created copyright for all existing works which would be protected under their new terms (they had never had a copyright law before, so there had never been anything which "expired" under a previous law). However, since they are not a member of the Berne Convention (yet), those works are still not protected internationally, unless they were first published in a Berne country, or the author is a national or resident of a Berne country. In the case of that 1983 photo, it was made by a Western photographer and published in a different country, so that is and has always been under copyright in all Berne and/or UCC countries (though not in Afghanistan itself, as their law only protects works done by Afghan nationals, at least until they join Berne or the UCC or make other treaties which grants protection to foreign works). See Article 5 of the Berne Convention for the definition of "country of origin" (which in turn usually applies in rule of the shorter term countries to determine the "shorter" term). Due to that, PD-Afghanistan only applied to works made by Afghan nationals which were also first published there. Taking a photo there, and publishing it somewhere else, means it's not an Afghan work at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I see. I recently saw signed ones for sale from National Geographic for 65USD. By the time I decided to buy one they had been removed from the site. I emailed the photographer site and they want over 6000USD. No thanks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Owning a copy of the print (or a copy of a book or DVD, or in most jurisdictions, even owning the original photograph negative) is not the same thing as owning the copyright. Existing copies can continue to be sold and resold and do not need permission from the copyright owner. Making further copies, on the other hand does require permission, so even if you buy a print, that does not mean you can upload a digital copy here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I was aware of that so I may just have one of these printed instead. File:Woman outside Sepulchre-2.jpg It reminded me of the 1983 one. Too bad it failed FP from too many moral opposes. I am still trying to sell one I took. I may yet upload a non-watermarked version. File:Watermark sample.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

€200 note

The file shown on the right (and quite possibly other similar files) indicates [11] as its source. However, the image of that banknote shown at that URL has the word "specimen" printed across it, wheres the file hosted by Commons does not. Is that a problem? (Note earlier discussion about banknotes above.) --JN466 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi

Hello all. I have been mediating a dispute on the English Wikipedia about which image to use in the infobox of en:Autobiography of a Yogi. As part of that, I asked a question at the English Wikipedia's media copyright questions noticeboard here, but I haven't got any response in five days, so I thought I would ask here to see if anyone can help. We want to know the copyright status of two photographs; the first is File:Paramahansa Yogananda.jpg, and the second is the image from this eBay listing (or maybe a similar photo at Amazon here). These images are both taken from the original 1946 edition of the book Autobiography of a Yogi.

The 1946 edition is in the public domain, after a court found that the Self-Realization Fellowship, the organization who filed to renew the book's copyright, were ineligible to do that. Judging by the same court case, though, the status of the photograph itself is less clear. Photographs taken by SRF employees may well still be in copyright (but I can't be sure without more investigation), but photographs taken by others and claimed by the SRF are definitely in the public domain. I'm not sure who took the photograph on the cover in question, unfortunately. My question is this: as the 1946 edition of the book is now in the public domain, does this mean that the cover image is also in the public domain, and that we can use both of the images above on Commons? If anyone could help it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Publication date vs creation date

I wonder how general confusion between creation dates and publication dates is, for works that don't come with an obvious date attached? I've just created one DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:35 near Cameron Lake.png), which I suppose can look after itself. My concern is the many portrait paintings of Philip de László. Example: File:Portrait of Knyaginya Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma of Bulgaria - oil painting.jpg says "1899" as the date, but this feels like the creation date, not publication date (and is unsourced anyway). Philip de László made thousands of portraits and some are widely used to illustrate the relevant WP biographies. Whilst many will fail the URAA anyway, others will be fine if we can be reasonably sure about the publication dates. These are commissioned portraits and it's not at all obvious that they're published in the year of creation. What do we do here? Rd232 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Most works don't remain unpublished long -- you are usually not going to spend lots of time making a painting and then hide it away forever. I think it's reasonable to assume that it was published sometime around then, unless there is some specific indication to show that it remained unpublished longer (which did occasionally happen, but for works like paintings and novels, that's usually documented). Publication in the context of commissioned works I suppose could be different, much fuzzier. Photographs are different; those could much more easily remain unpublished longer -- particularly for family photos, though even say newspaper photographers would take lots of photos which were never published. I'd say to use common sense, really -- if there is a decent reason to believe that a work may not have been published until much later, then perhaps require better documentation for those. As always, if better information comes to light later, we can re-evaluate. But we assume good faith on thousands of uploads every day, and the odds of copyvios in there is a usually lot higher than the possibility that works remained unpublished for significant periods. For the Laszlo painting, the U.S. copyright would probably ride on if it remained unpublished all the way through 1989. We are rarely going to have perfect publication information, so we are usually going to have to make *some* level of assumption on things. For example, for the Cameron Lake photo, we are assuming the country of origin is Canada -- but if the Canadian government for some reason published it in the United States a month earlier than in Canada, that would not be the case. It'd be silly to assume that anything other than Canada is the country of origin unless we get some specific evidence to the contrary, but it's still an assumption. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, there are assumptions and assumptions. Generally it seems reasonable to assume a government work is published in the relevant country unless there's evidence to the contrary (eg published by an embassy?). Whereas assuming that a work was published on or near its creation date is an entirely different kettle of fish. Even for "ordinary" paintings (not commissioned portraits, but artistic works by artists) the work may not be published until years later or even posthumously. Commissioned portraits, the issue prompting my post, aren't made for the public, they're made for the subject, and would normally be displayed in a private place initially (which wouldn't constitute publication, I presume). Only later would the painting at some point be made accessible to the public (via lending to an exhibition, or sale to a museum, or converting the private place into a museum, etc). Or, for all we know, the painting was never made accessible to the public, and it was photographed in a private place. Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • secretariat@cb-cda.gc.ca is the email for the Copyright Board of Canada. I have always had prompt and good responses from emails I send to gov.ca. If someone could find the wording and a sample link they may wish to email any questions we have. You could have them respond to OTRS if that is needed for official Canadian guidelines here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Photograph of Lenin & Copyright issues

Russian Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin died in 1924 and the following Photograph was clicked in 1918.

File:Lenin reading Pravda.jpg

After reviewing Picture books from Soviet era, I realised that the image was although clicked by a photographer but the copyright was retained with the Soviet Press Agency TASS. After the dissolution of USSR the copyright was passed on to RIA-NOVOSTI, press agency.
If we want to retain this photograph on wikimedia, then it must be in public domain. But a photograph can only be transferred in public domain 70 years after the death of its original author.
This photograph was first published in Soviet Press in June 1918. However some of the press agencies like Novosti still claiming to be the legitimate owner of this photograph.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO TRANSFER THIS PHOTOGRAPH IN PUBLIC DOMAIN, considering the criteria that it was first published in a soviet newspaper more than 90 years ago.
regards.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think anything published before 1923 is PD in the USA and can be uploaded to the commons servers which are in Florida.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No, per COM:L it needs to be PD in the source country too. I think it would be PD if the author died over 70 years ago; it's not clear from Commons:Copyright tags what happens in Russia for anonymous works. Rd232 (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not anonymous. The photographer is [12] Pyotr Otsup, who died in 1963. The photo is thus copyrighted until 2034.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
-Ok thanks people, for elaborating my knowledge, i've placed <pd-us> tag on that image yesterday considering its first publish criteria. I ALSO FOUND THAT RIA NOVOSTI Press Agency retains copyright of that image. RIA NOVOSTI has a photo sharing agreement with Wikimedia Commons. I've Requested RIA NOVOSTI staff to transfer this image into public domain. The request can be seen here.RIA NOVOSTI WIKIMEDIA COMMONS-Viplovecomm (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

URAA review (again)

To help move things along with the URAA review (and hopefully useful beyond that!) I've developed {{COML compliance}}, a template that tries to help figure out PD status (basically, trying to put the Commons:Hirtle chart into a template...). Example of first use: File:Portrait of Knyaginya Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma of Bulgaria - oil painting.jpg. As well as general feedback on the template idea and implementation, I have a specific question arising from the first example: does the URAA restoration apply to all works in copyright on the URAA date, or only to works published 1923 or later? My understanding is the latter, but I'm not 100% sure. Rd232 (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Works published before 1923 are in PD in the USA, even if they still aren't in PD in source country. Then, for pre-1923 works, URAA restoration and other US laws don't matter.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have the same understanding: Works published before 1923 are always PD in the USA and therefore fine for Commons if they're now PD in their source country - even if they became only PD in the source country e.g. last year. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. The general idea behind the restorations is to give foreign works the same duration of copyright protection US works have "at home". Since US works published before 1923 aren't protected (in the US), the same applies to foreign works. --Rosenzweig τ 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The actual sequence was that restored works got a term of 75 years from publication. Later, in 1998, the U.S. extended that for works not yet expired (foreign and domestic) from 75 to 95 years, creating the 1923 line. But any restored works which had already been more than 75 years, or had re-expired, remained public domain. So for example a foreign work published in 1922 did in fact get restored on Jan 1, 1996, then re-expired on January 1, 1998, and was not extended in mid-1998 when the terms were changed. But I think the same principle is there for countries with post 1998 URAA dates -- they would not get restored any further than U.S. works would get, as the U.S. generally operates on a "national treatment" model, i.e. they give foreign authors the same protection their own authors get. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyone for confirming that pre-1923/URAA issue. Now does anyone have any thoughts on the {{COML compliance}} template? Rd232 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are the results consistent with those of the PD-in template? -- Asclepias (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think so. It transcludes PD-in now, for cases where that might be useful. Rd232 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Publication right

I created {{PD-EU-unpublished}}, since it seems we never covered this case before. Any comments, or is it good as is? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

            • Do note that the UK unpublished thing does not apply to photographs (well, come 2028 there may be a few); photos created before June 1957 had a term of 50 years from creation, not publication. That was extended to 70pma by the EU directives of course but that would be the limit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The template seems to ignore that the publisher gets copyright to unpublished works, at least in some EU countries (probably most of them). The term of 25 years is noted, but not the implication: publishing the work here means it is no longer PD, and needs a licence. --LPfi (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • That statement contradicts itself; why would there be a publication right, if the publisher got the full copyright anyway? I haven't heard of this in any EU country (it exists in some non-EU countries, but that is not the issue here). -- Liliana-60 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry to have used the wrong word. The publisher does not get the full copyright, but I understand the difference is irrelevant for us. If published here without a licence we have to wait 25 years (or whatever the term) before being able to undelete it or to accept it from some other uploader (one heir finds an unpublished work, uploads it and disappears - then we cannot keep it or accept it from another heir). --LPfi (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Art Linkletter 2010.jpg

Ooops. Someone want to verify that this flickr person isn't the copyright holder and tag or delete? I didn't see the exif until after upload.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete File:Goldener Reiter Dresden crop.jpg too if you are in the mood. Just a bad crop I did of another image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted the first one as copyvio, the second was already deleted as duplicate. Next time you find a copyvio, just tag it with Template:Copyvio.--Rosenzweig τ 22:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just thought it might possibly be legit. I noticed that File:Goldener Reiter Dresden crop.jpg was left as a re-direct. Is this common? The re-direct can be deleted as well. Nothing links there. Do I just tag it for deletion as well?

You could tag it with {{Speedydelete}}. Note however that Commons tends to keep redirects if the filename was in use for a long time. This one was in use for a few weeks only, so I deleted it at your request. --Rosenzweig τ 23:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I only needed the file as example crop for a FP candidate. Next time I will add that the re-direct can go to in the speedy request.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange clause?

I just read the en:wp article on Candian copyright. It seems that the owner of the film or digital camera are the copyright holder. If you pay a photographer to take a picture, the one who first ordered the picture is the copyright holder unless an agreement is signed. Am I reading this right? http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5144516&File=39 Clause 6 section 10 on the right of the page about 1/4 down.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing US law with non-US laws. If you order someone in the United States to take a photo of you, then the one paying for the photo seems to be the initial copyright holder unless something else has been decided beforehand. However, in many European countries, the copyright holder is the photographer (even if it is a work for hire), and there is not necessarily an option to decide something else beforehand. It seems that Canada uses a third variant of this. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Not since 1978 -- the photographer would be the copyright holder unless there is an agreement to the contrary. It would have to qualify as a "work for hire" for someone else to be the first copyright holder. Cases before 1978 were mixed but did often favor the commissioning party, but the 1978 law made explicit the need for a written transfer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Note also that not all works done for money in the US qualify as "works for hire" - see en:Work_for_hire#Law_in_the_United_States. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are reading it correctly. That was the situation until recently (see below). However, note that your question refers to two different sections of the Copyright Act (in its previous version), and to two different notions : one notion is the author and the other notion is the first owner of the copyright. Section 10 paragraph (2) of the Act was about the notion of author. It provided that the owner of the negative, on which the photographic work was created, was the author of the photo. (And, being the author, he became also, by the effect of section 13 paragraph (1) of the Act, the first owner of the copyright.) For the application of that provision, it wasn't entirely clear to me what part of the digital equipment should be considered the equivalent of the first negative or photograph, but that has become a moot question now, after the recent modifications to the Act. Section 13 paragraphs (1) to (3) of the Act are about the notion of first owner of the copyright. Section 13 paragraph (3) of the Act provides that the employer is the first owner of the copyright of the works authored by his employees in the course of their employment. The employee is the author of he work, but the employer is the first owner of the copyright on that work. (The consequence is that the employer owns the copyright for a duration calculated on the basis of the year of the death of the employee, because the duration of the copyright is calculated on the basis of the year of the death of the author, although in this case the author does not own the copyright.) Section 13 paragraph (2) of the Act provided that the person who ordered and paid for the creation of a photograph was the first owner of the copyright. The owner of the negative was the author but the customer was the first owner of the copyright. It was not that strange, just different from the copyright laws of some other countries. Actually, it made sense. It placed customers on an equal footing with employers. It also allowed a customer to use his portrait or passport photo, without having to renegociate and buy, from the employer of the photographer, additional permissions to use or to reproduce it, if not specifically included in the initial contract. Anyway, as you know (since your link is to the the text of the modifying law), those provisions of the Copyright Act were deeply modified recently, on June 29, 2012. Among other changes, section 10 was entirely repealed and section 13 paragraph (2) was repealed. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I just thought it was strange that the film owner has the copyright. I remember a question about someone wanting a picture of themself. If they lent their camera to a friend, then the friend would have to upload it or email OTRS. It does vary by country I assume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In Canada, before the recent changes to the law, the owner of the camera (and of the memory card, to be safe) would likely have been the author and copyright owner. A problem may or may not have arisen if he then planned to upload it to Commons (i.e. to first make it available on a server in the U.S.) before (or simultaneously with) publishing it in Canada. The Canadian law said that he is the copyright owner, but the U.S. law implies that the person who took the photo is the copyright owner. Not sure what would have happened then. He could have published his photo in Canada, then waited thirty days and then uploaded it to Commons. But could he have uploaded the photo on Commons first or simultaneously? Anyway, I remember that we could save a photo on Commons on the basis of this provision of the Canadian law. See there. (Although I suppose someone could have argued the other way about the possibility that the photo may have been published in the US.) -- Asclepias (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
That is very good research in that link. Does creation in Canada start the copyright though, so that time of publication in the US would not matter? I am also curious about the URAA thingy. If an image is taken by the crown in Canada over 50 years ago it is PD-Can. If the image never leaves the country does the US copyright extend past the 50 years, and if so who owns the copyright?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It must be remembered that the 50-year period of the Crown copyright in Canada, including on photographs, starts only with the publication of the work (not with the creation of the work, as was the case with individually-authored photographs until 1999 and with corporate-authored photographs until 2012). For example, a Crown photo created in 1956 and first published in 1957 has entered the public domain in Canada on january 1, 2008, but a photo created in 1956 and first published in 1967 is still under active Crown copyright in Canada until January 1, 2018 (because the start of the 50-year period is calculated from the end of the year of the first publication). When the year of the first publication is not documented, it can be difficult to determine if the Crown copyright has expired. The precautionary principle of Commons implies that the photo can probably not be hosted on Commons, unless there are enough clues to reasonably allow the conclusion that the the photo was almost certainly published more than 50 years ago.
About the URAA provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act, you can refer to the page en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for detailed information. The URAA date applicable to Canada is January 1, 1996. Without entering into the details, this means that if a Crown photo was first published in Canada more than 50 years before January 1, 1996 (i.e. if the photo was published in Canada before January 1, 1946), without compliance to the formalities required by the U.S. copyright law, then it is in the public domain in the United States. But if it was first published in Canada after January 1, 1946, it is still under active copyright in the United States until 95 years after its first publication. A Crown photo created in 1956 and first published in 1957 has entered the public domain of Canada in 2008 but it will enter the public domain of the United States in 2053. In the United States, the copyright continues to be owned by the same Crown entity that owned the copyright in Canada and everywhere else. (For example the Crown in chief of Ontario, if the photo was created by an agent of the government of Ontario.)
(Some people on Commons are of the opinion that Commons should ignore the URAA provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act when the copyright on a work in the U.S. is owned by a government. Their argument is that if the legislative branch of one level of government in a country has adopted a law about the duration of the copyright owned by the executive branch(es) of government(s) in that country, then that/those executive branch(es) of government(s) could be assumed to lose interest in exercising the copyrights that it/they still own(s) in other countries for a longer duration. That's not really convincing, and it may be imprudent to assume so unless the government in question makes a declaration that it renounces the copyrights it owns in other countries.)
-- Asclepias (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Cake designs

I suppose cake designs are copyrightable? Please comment at "Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#TROLL-CAKE.jpg". (Yes, I know, it's not the best place for the discussion to be taking place, but an editor active there tagged for speedy deletion an image for which work had been requested at the photography workshop. If necessary, I suppose we can convert it to a regular deletion review.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think most cakes don't have a copyrightable layout, but this one looks to me as having an illustration printed on it. Then it's just as copyrightable as a piece of paper with the same illustration printed on it. Then, we need permission from the author of the illustrations - at least.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If calligraphy is copyrightable in a nation, most cakes with freehand writing will be copyrightable. In the US, any cake with plastic figures will carry the copyright of those figures. Certain hand-drawn illustrations on a cake will carry their own copyright just about anywhere; I don't think it matters what media a painter paints in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything that would make them inherently uncopyrightable. On the other hand, for one-off cake designs, it's an area where copyright protection probably makes little sense, so it's also an area where there is probably little court precedent guidance to show what possible boundaries there are. I'd think they could be something similar to ice sculpture in terms of their permanence, for countries with FOP. And most cakes are probably scènes à faire. Plastic figures on a cake are probably incidental to the photo, unless the photo is concentrating on them or featuring them somehow. But, I suppose someone could claim copyright a particular design they reuse on a lot of cakes, to prevent others from using the same design. So it's probably not impossible. This one is more unusual; it seems to have a photo of some kind printed on it, so it's already a derivative work. And I don't think the Guy Fawkes masks are incidental. Assuming that the photo was uploaded by the same person who designed the cake, most of those situations would be fine, but this is a bit more unusual. I'm still trying to decide if someone tried to sell a postcard of the cake, if a judge would rule it to be derivative of either the underlying photo or the masks. Not sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I guess we should apply our precautionary principle and delete the image. Thanks for the input, guys. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Check out this TED video that is partially on cake design copyright. --Vera (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Fascinating. Thanks for this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Images in Category:Butter sculptures for a bunch of art made of food that got deleted. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo of J.L. Richards deleted I believe in error

On 7/22/12 my photo of JL Richards was deleted in Commons by Fastily. I believe this was done in error.

This photo (JLrichards-1.jpg) clearly falls under Public Domain - PD-Pre-1978 and was tagged accordingly.

In addition:

  • 1) the photo was taken around 1900
  • 2) the photo has no copyright notice
  • 3) the book "James Lorin Richards, the Story of a New England Industrialist" has no copyright notice or date
  • 4) Abbey Press of Boston is defunct
  • 5) the author, William Thomas Cloney Jr., a Northeastern Univ professor, has been dead for several years
  • 6) this was a family photo provided to Northeastern University, at the request of President Ells in 1948
  • 7) I am JL Richards (1858-1955) Great Great Grandson and am knowledgeable on this subject

Please help. I have included a digital file of the book scanned by Google for the University of California.

James Lorin Richards The Story of a New England Industrialist

Thank you Jtlanghorne (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The key data are:
  • When was the photo first published? If it was first published in the USA before 1923, it is PD.
  • When did the photographer die?
You can see Commons:PD_files#Determination_of_public_domain_in_US_.28and_copyrights.29.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no photo credits, no dates, no copyright of any kind in the entire book. (See above link) In addition, after further research, Google digitized considers the entire book in the Public Domain. I've attached a link - check the upper left corner under "Copyright".

Copyright Public Domain - Google under "About this Book"

  • According to your own link this qualifies un PD-Pre1978

Jtlanghorne (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say PD-US-No Notice. The scan linked above shows no copyright notice but does identify the publisher in the usual way, so a missing page is unlikely. There does not appear to be in independent scan on the web, but Worldcat shows the date 1948 with a question mark, strongly suggesting that the cataloger found no notice, or at least no date.
It is also possible that the photo is independently PD based on unrestricted distribution prior to 1923. Lack of notice is also likely for the photograph but proving it would probably require access to an original print. A third possibility would be PD-heirs if it is argued that the photograph was a commissioned work. Dankarl (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we can't assume this book is the first publication of the photograph - unless we find a good reason tot think so. The photograph can have been published earlier with a copyright notice and complying with all required formalities.
In the other hand, the photograph could have been published before 1923, but we should prove it, or at least, we should show that it is likely.
Btw. in which page of the book is the photo we are talking about?--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Pere - by your first argument we would never accept "no-notice" material. The unrestricted distribution argument applies to any professional portrait that is delivered to the customer: if the copyright remained with the photographer then delivery to the customer would constitute publication since the customer can then transfer his copy or copies as he wishes. (This argument was advanced here a few months ago by Carl Lindberg.) Dankarl (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright notice had to be on *all* published copies, or at least the large majority, and it was a defense for infringement if you based your use on a copy without notice and were not aware of others. Publishing with notice for a few years, but then forgetting when publishing a bunch more, would lose the copyright too. If the photo was in that book with authorization then it became PD then, as HathiTrust has the full text online, which means they think it's PD, and indeed there are no copyright notices on the title pages. Unless a copyright owner surfaces and can show that it was an unauthorized publication (the odds being ridiculously small), the photo has been PD since at least 1948, which I think is the year the book was published. It may or may not have been considered published before that, don't know, but we don't need to I don't think. PD-US-no_notice is a fairly obvious license. William Thomas Cloney lived from 1911 to 2003[13], but that's not relevant to the copyright term.  Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have attached below the original scan of the first pages of my copy of the book "James Lorin Richards, The Story of a New England Industrialist". This is the photo in question and title page. As you can see, there is no copyright notice. Moreover, since he was born in 1858, even if he was 60 here (which he obviously is not, as he lived until 1955) that would date the photo to 1918 - wouldn't that satisfy the 1923 cutoff? Please click on this link-

J.L. Richards

Thank you. Jtlanghorne (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Threes Company full cast 1977.JPG

This photo appears in the Getty Images. Back then, this photo was sent to newspapers by mail because there was no internet, especially in the 1970s. Also, the notice says "For editorial use. All rights reserved." However, it has omitted copyright notice, required by Copyright Act of 1909 and (before 1988 Amendment) of 1976. The agreement on the notice is apparently too old, too obsolete, and too vague right now because... the photos were used for editorial uses only during the days that had no widespread use of internet. Also, this photo may not have been used for sale or given to the public for personal collection. ABC loaned photos to only periodicals, affiliates, and media-related companies. So, since ABC has published this photo into Getty, I wonder if this photo is still copyrighted, even if it was already given to a newspaper. --George Ho (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the Getty site they mean editorial uses only as no commercial use because they don't have releases signed by the cast. Those would be needed because of personality rights. I think once ABC gave the images away then that would be publication.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Getty wouldn't own any rights. That is a pretty low-resolution photo though; can't quite make out all the text on the top right. May also want to be sure that the back doesn't have anything... seems to be the front side twice, but with the sheet of paper folded away on the main one. A proper notice could be on the back. But otherwise, I think you're right -- it would be considered "published", so they would have to follow notice requirements. Note that lack of notice after 1978 could be remedied a bit easier, by registering the work within 5 years (and another step or two), so those are a bit harder to show loss of copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Carl, I've found 2 more identical copies of the image and added them--all have the same information on them. We hope (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have a "(C) 2012 ..." overlay in an image itself?

A gallery of images was recently added to this article: Gastown, and the images all have the content creator's "(C) 2012..." message overlaid into the image itself. While the community should be grateful for a content creator to upload and license their work under CC (as this creator has done), it does appear a bit garish and unusual for this sort of message right in the image. Please take a look and share your thoughts. --Ds13 (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't look (since you didn't link to any specific image), but such visible captions would often be considered inappropriate watermarking... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the watermark template. That's helpful. The six images, BTW, are used here: Gastown#Gallery. --Ds13 (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Buildings in Romania

I want to call attention to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bucharest Victoria Palace 2.jpg. The rationale may be correct, but if this photo is to be deleted on grounds of lack of FOP, we will have to delete not only this photo but essentially every image of any building from Communist-era Romania or more recently (a few might be saved because the architect signed OTRS). This would include, for example the Palace of the Parliament, National Theatre, Category:Bucharest Opera House, etc. If we are considering this, I'd really rather see a central discussion than have to take this up one photo at a time. I'd also hope that if we make such a decision I, and others, who have uploaded such photos over many years, will have some chance to know which of our photos are about to be deleted and to have a chance to download our own work in order to copy it to somewhere other than Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that does seem to be correct. For buildings where the architect lived until at least 1/1/1941, they are still copyrighted, and if "the image of the work is the principal subject", it's not free and can't be kept. I do think the allowable use based on this wording might go beyond the usual de minimis, but where a building or artwork is the focus of the photo, it's clearly prohibited. cmadler (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Before 1996, Romania had 50 years pma, and the new law was not retroactive, so works where the author died before 1946 should be okay. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the 1996 law was retroactive. Since that law went into effect after the URAA date, those restorations had no further effect on the U.S. status, so U.S. restorations of Romanian works would be based on a 1946 death date. But in Romania itself, it is now a full 70pma (so death in 1941 or earlier is OK). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry? Read article 128:
Durata drepturilor patrimoniale asupra operelor create înainte de intrarea în vigoare a prezentei legi şi pentru care nu au expirat termenele de protecţie calculate conform procedurilor legislaţiei anterioare se prelungeşte până la termenul de protecţie prevăzut în prezenta lege.
Works created by authors who died before the enforcement of this law and whose term of intellectual property protection has not expired yet shall have the term lengthened to that provided in this law.
That is clearly non-retroactive. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
And section 149(3)? (In this law, which I think is the 1996 text). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The word not was missing in the 1996 text. They added that in an amendment in 2004. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Ohhhh. Right. I remember that conversation now. That created some legal uncertainty, but... the law was changed to negate that. Probably not conformant with EU directives, but that won't matter after 2016, and if nobody has challenged them by now, they probably won't by then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this requires special discussion for Romania -- there is no FOP exception in at least 48 nations of interest to us and it is not good, but we live with it: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Kazakhstan, Korea (South), Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vatican City. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP image

A BLP on en:wp wants to provide an image for their article. They have a wp account. Can they hand their camera to a friend to take the image and the BLP uploads as copyright holder because they own the camera? USA I assume, unless they are travelling.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In the USA, except for a work for hire situation, the photographer would be the copyright holder. The subject could use a tripod and timer to take his/her own photo, or could have the friend who takes the photo do the upload. cmadler (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what would be easiest for them. I will suggest both. With work for hire can they just shake hands a exchange $1, or does it need to be in writing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be in writing, but a simple written agreement by itself might not be enough. Take a close look at what the US Copyright Office says about it. cmadler (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not automatically in the U.S. Normally (in cases other than works for hire), the creator of the photo is deemed to be the author and the author is the initial owner of the copyright. On Commons, when a user uploads someone else's work, then to make things perfectly clear and safe, usually it can be asked that the creator send an e-mail through OTRS, confirming that he releases the specified work under a specified free license (or to the public domain). See the OTRS help pages for the details and for the recommended wording. If the creator can't even be convinced to send an e-mail, I guess he could be asked to at least make the declaration of license on a piece of paper and then the owner of the camera can take a photo of that declaration and send that photo himself through OTRS. Can't guarantee if the OTRS people will accept it. The user should probably ask them beforehand at the OTRS noticeboard. (Another possibility would be for the creator and the other person to sign an agreement to transfer the copyright. See the section "transfer of copyright" of the circular Copyright basics. However, the creator might terminate the transfer agreement after 35 years. I don't know if this possibility of a hypothetical future termination affects the right of the transferee to grant free licenses during the period when he does hold the copyright. Anyway, writing a declaration of free license is probably a more simple solution.Btw, forgive my ignorance, but what is a BLP? A bacterial lipoprotein?) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
BLP="Biography of Living Person" on en-wp, or in this case, the subject of the biography. In other words, someone who has a Wikipedia article about him/herself wants to contribute an photograph for that article. cmadler (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I even made a nice, simple, transit file they can use. File:BLP transit.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to do. It sounds much more complicated than the usual method where the user uploads the file directly to the correct filename, with the expected license and with the tag OTRS-pending. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I just thought it may save a few steps. I mentioned it on en:wp and it may get other uses as well. A BLP may email or link to the image they wish, the helpful user uploads it, The BLP approves and sends the email to OTRS. Many on en:wp don't know how to upload and it may be simpler for them as well. Is it normal to upload first to get a file name and then send the file name to OTRS? I don't think you can email an image to OTRS. The file can be used for other transit purposes as well and avoid re-names, deletions etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is normal to upload the file (with the proper information and the expected license) to be sure about the exact filename and then have the copyright owner send the confirmation mail to OTRS as soon as possible, specifying that filename. (If the file is uploaded by a helpful user who is a third party and the photo was taken in a private situation, then I suppose that the the person pictured on the photo could also be asked to send a confirmation of his consent.) -- Asclepias (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cmadler and Asclepias are right, but when a notable person uploads an image of himself and sends an OTRS permission, stating that he owns the rights, usually the image is not challenged in Commons. I think that with a bit of good faith and common sense, we can assume that the notable person and the photographer can arrange their issues by themselves. Furthermore, if the photographer sued the WMF about such an image, the WMF could use the e-mail to show that the copyright infringer is the notable person, not the WMF. Then, allowing such images of BLP with a permission from the BLP - providing that in such permission he states that he owns rights enough to license the image - should not be regarded as a breach of Commons precautionary principle.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I may add more information sections to the talk page as well. Personality rights, consent in private places, etc. I think the page may be useful if all the links are in one place with a short description. It will save them bouncing all over the projects to look them up when the discussion page can have them all in a nutshell with links.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's all true, but the question as worded is one where the premise implies that the pictured person would not own the rights, unless an explicit agreement is actually taken. And it seems that a person is specifically asking the en.wikipedia community for suggestions about the best way he can have such an agreement properly made and his picture properly uploaded. The answers try to address that. I don't think it would be the best help to tell him "figure it out yourself" or "you can lie about it and it's not our problem if it gets someone into trouble". -- Asclepias (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure which question you are referring to but I added the copyright owner/transfer issues to the discussion page of the image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
My comment to the comment by Pere prlpz refers to the situation and the question posed at the top of this section: "A BLP on en:wp wants to provide an image..." "Can they hand their camera to a friend to take the image..." -- Asclepias (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that now. It also depends on the country they are in. In Canada whoever buys the film, owns the digital camera/memory card, or hires the photographer is the copyright holder.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That will not be the case anymore in Canada, as noted above in this page, in the section titled "Strange clause?". The recent modifications to the Copyright Act were passed on 29 June 2012. I don't know what date was fixed, or will be fixed, by government decree for the coming into force of those modifications but, if they're not in force already, they will probably be relatively soon. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I edited Canada out and just put 'some countries'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Asclepias: You are right that suggesting the BLP to lie us is not fair nor a good idea, even if a particular kind of lie is usually believed and it doesn't cause any harm.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's foolish to assume the subject will secure and document an appropriate free license statement from the photographer, as opposed to some vague, inadequate statement of permission. The possibility that the photographer could assert rights over their work at a later time and sue affected content reusers cannot be ignored. The photographer must upload it themselves, or else COM:OTRS procedure must be followed by getting an e-mail from them releasing it under a free license and sending it to OTRS. Note that a "work for hire" in the US is not simply a work completed in exchange for money - it has a precise legal definition that would not encompass simply paying a friend $1 to take your picture (as they are not an employee, nor is it in one of the nine categories). Dcoetzee (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I tweaked it to reflect that and recommended OTRS in that case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

High school year books

Are they normally copyrighted in those decades when a copyright notice was required? Template:PD-US-no notice? -- 01:22, 26 July 2012‎ User:Canoe1967

Usually {{PD-US-no notice}} (college/university yearbooks as well), but you should verify the lack of notice on the specific yearbook before using any content. cmadler (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't have the yearbooks. I found images of Obama and Romney though. Would an email from the high schools to OTRS work if they can confirm that they have never copyrighted yearbooks? Is there a way to find out with an online search?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:PD-France

I've just found {{PD-France}}, which says at the top "THIS TEMPLATE IS CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED, PLEASE DO NOT USE IT YET!". But it is in use. I've found Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_27#.7B.7BPD-France.7D.7D, a discussion from 2010. Is there anything more recent? Rd232 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember any recent discussion about it. It seems it was left there in abandon or unfinished. But you can probably get more information directly from the user (Eusebius) who originally wrote this template. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point - and he's been active recently. I left him a note. Rd232 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Old-school CC

If a video is tagged only "CC - Some rights reserved", what template is that? It was an official CC license image, but from years ago. http://www.geekentertainment.tv/2006/05/03/steve-wozniak-and-victor-miller-master-of-segway-polo/ ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 00:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The CC license requires a link to the URI. There is a link on the page you say, it goes to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/. --Martin H. (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The webpage says CC Attribution non-commercial share-alike. Commons does not have a template for it because that license is not accepted on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Not the page, the video - http://a17.video4.blip.tv/2130000987035/Ekai-SteveWozniakAndVictorMillerMasterOfSegwayPolo934.mov ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 01:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The image doesn't refer to a particular license. —innotata 01:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The video and the website are copyrighted by the same business. Their video is offered on their website. On their website, the page where the video is offered links to the text of the CC-by-nc-sa 2.5 license and displays a notice that reads "All content on this site is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike unless otherwise specified." The generic CC image in the video does not specify otherwise. If you take that image in isolation, it looks like an unspecified license, but if you take it in its explicit context as noted above, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the business is offering the video under the CC-by-nc-sa 2.5 licence. Nothing in the context allows to interpret it as being another type of CC license. I agree that it's not as straightforward as it could be and that the notice in the video itself should have been specific about the license. In practice, it may make things somewhat more complicated for people who want to reuse the video. The reusers must make sure that their reuse adds, one way or another, a notice about the specific license, as it's not specified directly in the original video, and they should mention the link to the original source website that confirms the license. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The point is that they weren't NC when they were uploaded, it wasn't until months later that the videos started being marked NC and the site-wide notice was added. Not to mention the several other websites these videos were uploaded to by the producer without the NC tag. My question is simply, if a piece of media (any hypothetical media) was marked simply "CC - some rights reserved" in late 2005 or early 2006, what Commons template would that equate to? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 06:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
In that case, you may be theoretically correct, but without any way of documenting their formerly-declared status, they might still be rejected for upload to Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
From the start of Creative Commons, in 2002, there were many different CC licenses [14]. A mention "CC - some rights reserved", alone, is not the mention of a license. It is, and always was, meaningless, if not accompanied by the mention of an actual license or by a link to a licence (or at least by something in the context that tells what license is offered). Therefore, there is no template for that on Commons. (By the way, the use of the CC mark without any reference to an actual license is considered by CC as a violation of their trademark [15].) -- Asclepias (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes browsing en:archive.org helps alot. Here is the archived version of that page as of 28th of may 2006. That's the earliest version available at archive.org that contains the video. The CC-some-rights-reserved-button in the bottom right corner links to CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5. The video was posted there on May 3rd, 2006. The same license has been used on that page since november 2005 – months before the vid was uploaded there. --El Grafo (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If you come across a hypothetical image marked only with "CC - some rights reserved", the only appropriate Commons license template is {{subst:nld}}. The image does not have information on its license status (a simple "CC" marking is ambiguous), so it needs to be deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question and showing me how factually inaccurate my assumption was. Very productive. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 16:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
To be clear that was not meant snarkily, my assertion was wrong. Now I have the joys of waiting for OTRS clearance... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 00:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv | public domain vs. CC-BY-SA 3.0

Dear all,
I recently discovered Category:Oscar Tellgmann, a famous German photographer who died in 1936, hence 70 years PMA applies. Nonetheless most of the images feature the CC licence of the original Bundesarchiv upload and the public domain template. JarektBot correctly applied the public domain template (based on the information of the creator template?), yet Martin H. reverted those changes in a large number of cases.
Other files from the Bundesarchiv are in the public domain as well, e.g. File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1971-053-59, Mannheim, US-Truppen im Straßenkampf.jpg. I don't get the idea behind applying both templates. Those files are obviously in the public domain - applying CC licences on public domain material is copyfraud. The initial upload of the Bundesarchiv applied CC licences to all content, independent if public domain or not. Several users worked hard on identifying public domain material and added templates where appropriate. Ideas anyone? Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of the photos by Tellgmann were created after 1922. Those can't have been published before their creation, so they are still under copyright in the United States. If Bundesarchiv have obtained the ownership or the administration of the copyright, the license allows their use in the United States. Some other photos by Tellgmann were created before 1923, but their year of publication may not be documented, so they also may still be under copyright in the United States. If Bundesarchiv owns or manages the copyright, their license obviates the problem of the publication year. Of course, if one wants to use Tellgmann's photos in a country where their copyright has already expired, that should not be a problem. But if one wants to use them in a country where they are still under copyright, the license should be used. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Asclepias: For post-1922 photos, using the public domain template and the original Bundesarchiv CC-BY-SA 3.0 license displayed makes a lot of sense due to copyright issues in the United States, where the simple "70 years after the creator's death it's in the public domain" rule of Germany doesn't apply. The U.S. have a different simple rule (if first published prior to 1923 it's in the public domain), but where this doesn't apply, only the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license lets Commons keep material which would otherwise not be in the PD in the U.S. So, using both templates tells the users: This is in the public domain in 70 years p.m.a. countries and CC-BY-SA in the United States. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, basically the CC license applies worldwide, while the PD licenses may not. It does sound like they are PD in 70pma countries, but not not necessarily all -- the U.S. uses a different type of copyright term from that era, and some countries have longer terms (Colombia is 80pma I think, for example), and the CC licenses are very useful in those countries. They should not be removed, but appropriate PD licenses can be added I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Plus Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs (respectively PD-scan in this case). Many countries grant protection for reproductions under copyright or neighbouring rights. --Martin H. (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Albert Kahn, The Archives of the Planet

Between 1909 and 1931 Albert_Kahn 1860-1940 collected 72,000 colour photographs and 183,000 meters of film. These form a unique historical record of 50 countries, known as "The Archives of the Planet". Any guess about copyright status of the collection? It would be great to add collection to commons. google search --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/01#Copyright_of_the_Albert_Kahn_collection. In short, we need to identify the photographers, and most of them appear to still be under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Good question. And fascinating photographs. I don't have an answer to your question. Apparently, each photograph can be attributed to its photographer [16]. In many countries, the photographer's year of death determines the duration of the copyright, although said copyright might be owned by the photographer's employer. It could be useful to know the contractual relations that existed between the photographers and Kahn and who eventually inherited the copyrights on the photos. Other informations to know to determine the copyright status include in what year, in what country, by who, and under what legal provision each photograph was first published. The answers may be different for different photographs. The BBC hints that many photos were unpublished until relatively recently. For example, if some photos were first published recently in France by the owner of the material photographs, after their original copyright had expired, they could be protected there under the exclusive publication right granted to the owner of the material objects who publishes them. If such publication was made by someone other that the successors to the original copyright owner(s), the publication is valid in France but the photos might still be considered unpublished in the United States and under copyright there. For what it's worth, on its website, the Kahn Museum seems to claim copyright on the photographs. I didn't find on its website an explicit explanation of their rationale for it. It could be that they acquired the material collection and they used the publication right. Or it could be that they acquired the copyrights from the successors to the original copyright owner(s). Or there's always the possibility that the claim is not valid. More factual informations would be useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
How recently? 1989-2002 is a big problem, because they're all under copyright in the US until at least 2047. 2003, on the other hand, makes them the same life+70 they are in the EU, which is a simplifying factor. (The US dropped an extension for previously unpublished works at the end of 2002.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
As I said, it would be useful to have more information about the circumstances of the first publication of each photo (or of groups of photos first published together). The BBC statement is merely that most of the 350 photographs that they published in their 2008 book had never been previously published [17]. At least, that would make it post-2002 for those photos in question. Although they probably mean "published" in the acception of that term in the UK law. It is possible that those photos could be considered to have been published before that in the acception of the U.S. law, I suppose, depending on the facts of their whole history. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Clindberg & Asclepias. The previous discussion & info above shows the issue is a bit complicated. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

German currency

Germany doesn't have an entry at Commons:Currency. There are lots of currency images in Category:PD Germany, tagged with {{PD-GermanGov}}, which is based on § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG. But as we know from the stamp review (Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review), § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst). So on what basis, if any, can we keep these images as PD? We have to consider as well that Bundesbank reproduction guidelines seem to require "SPECIMEN" written across notes in a certain size... Rd232 (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The "SPECIMEN" requirement sounds like a non-copyright requirement. Compare with the corresponding page at the Swedish central bank's home page.[18] Under the "Risk för förfalskning" section, it is suggested that you include the word "SPECIMEN" (and do a few other things) in order to avoid facing a lawsuit for forgery. The German page you found appears to be a German version of this anti-forgery advice, but it is very hard for me to read the German text. On the Swedish page, note the "Risk för intrång i upphovsrätten" section further below: the anti-forgery advice has nothing to do with copyright and you might face a lawsuit for copyright infringement even if you follow the anti-forgery advice since the money is copyrighted by the individual artists. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
German Wikipedia says that German banknotes and coins do not count as "official works" and are copyrighted. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Aha. Where does it say that? Rd232 (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
w:de:Wikipedia:Briefmarken, it's a page on stamps but near the bottom it says "Banknoten, Münzen und Nationalhymnen werden von der Literatur nicht als amtliche Werke angesehen" (banknotes, coins and national anthems are not regarded as official works by the literature). -- Liliana-60 (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, thanks Stefan4 and Liliana-60. I posted a question about the apparent German WP self-contradiction at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Deutsche_W.C3.A4hrung. Rd232 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (Germany). However, all coins in that deletion request also have another problem: no evidence of permission from the photographers. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, permission from the photographer/ holder of the copyright is required. -- Rillke(q?) 14:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Caveat: You try to apply a court decision about a work of fine art (the drawings in the stamps) to a work of craftsmanship (the relief of the Euro-coins). Also the court refers to paragraph 1 only. In paragraph 2 you clearly read: [...] im amtlichen Interesse zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht worden sind. I agree that stamps are not published for the reason of allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme but coins should because everyone should know how they look like to be able to pay (recognize as money) or check them for validity. And whether there is amtliches Interesse an einer freien Verwertung can be only answered by the authority itself. To conclude: Münzen ≠ Postwertzeichen. -- Rillke(q?) 14:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but as Liliana-60 pointed out above, German Wikipedia says notes and coins are not official works. Hence de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Deutsche_W.C3.A4hrung. Rd232 (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, sadly there's been no response on German Wikipedia yet. :( Anyone have any new thoughts? Rd232 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No new thoughts, only what I commented in the discussions about euro coins, in as much as it can apply to some other items of German currency. I never found online in free access the actual text of the judment of 1987 in München. Apparently, it is only available for payment from private publishers. If someone knows if it's available in free access, please let me know. Without that text, I must rely on what was commented about this judgment in previous discussions, and those comments are not always clear. If you had access to the text of the judgment, please correct me if I misunderstood anything. From what I think I understand from those discussions, that judment of 1987 accepted to apply § 5 (1) to the particular images of stamps that were actually published with an official text of the German government covered by § 5 (1). The reasoning of the judge was that the image of the stamp is under the copyright of its creating artist until the moment of the publication of the official text. But when the image becomes published with an official text, the presence of the image there makes the image itself an integral part of that official text. And applying § 5 (1) to it, that meas that the copyright on the image of the stamp becomes inoperant in Germany after the date when the official text is published. Assuming that that was indeed what the judgment said, at least two observations can be made. First, that judgment never said, and could not possibly have said, that § 5 (1) of the German copyright law, combined with the publication of a text by the German government, had any effect of removing or of making inoperant the copyright that the artist owns on his image in all countries other than Germany, under the copyright laws of those other countries. To my knowledge, nobody ever suggested any reasoning about why the artist's copyright in the United States, and in all other countries other than Germany, would suddenly disappear just because his copyright becomes inoperant in Germany at some given date. The images being under the artist's copyright in the United States, they can't be hosted on Commons, whatever their status may be in Germany. Secondly, for the image's status in Germany, it seems that that judgment was about stamps only, not about currency. Still, some people here and on Wikipedia got the idea of stretching the principle of this judment beyond its immediate scope and began to apply it to images of items other than stamps, for example to images of currency. Fast forward to 2012. A judge in Berlin decides in the completely opposite direction. The judgment of 2012 in Berlin, also about stamps, but this time involving directly Wikimedia, decides that § 5 (1) is not applicable to images and that the artist's copyright remains intact in Germany. The Wikimedia community now seems to give precedence to the 2012 jugment over the 1987 judgment. Since the § 5 (1) justification (from the 1987 judgment) was rejected by the Berlin judgment of 2012, and since that § 5 (1) justification is not considered acceptable anymore, even for stamps, which were the immediate scope of the 1987 judgment, it is difficult to imagine how could stand the stretch by which some users had extrapolated the principle of the 1987 judgement and of § 5 (1) from stamps to items of currency. Consequently, the images of currency as well of stamps seem to be protected by copyright in Germany, even in the particular version published in an official publication. Unless some argument can be made to the contrary. But even if they were not under copyright in Germany, it seems that they are protected in the United States anyway. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm, thanks. The issue of whether the PD-ness of stamps applies outside Germany is a whole new issue. I made a start with making {{PD-GermanGov-currency}} as a more-specific version of {{PD-GermanGov}}, and retagging files with it. If we can't come up with any good evidence that the currency is PD, we'll have to nominate that template and all files covered for deletion. Rd232 (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Some people even strectched the Munich court decision to apply to Austria (a completely different jurisdiction!)... See the currently stale discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coins of Austria (1945-2001). This of course doesn't have a legal basis, the Austrian Post even confirmed that Austrian stamps are copyrighted and may not be used, so why should it apply to currency? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I must say that I'm not sure about the necessity of a new template PD-GermanGov-currency at the present time. It could leave the wrong impression that there might be some legal reason that would grant a special status to images of currency, more than to other items about which §5(1) is claimed. However, images of currency are merely one of many items about which some users derive the generic argument that they base on §5(1). The current question to decide is if §5(1) can apply to images, and more specifically to images copyrighted by artists when they are published together with official texts. If it does not apply, then PD-GermanGov should simply be removed from those files, not replaced by a new template with the same rationale. If §5(1) applies to images and if at least some of those files could be also free in the U.S. for some reason and if they can be validly tagged with an accepted U.S. template, then perhaps a new template might be used. (But maybe it should not include "Gov", if the rationale is that it is the copyright of the individual artist that becomes expired by the fact of the publication of his image together with an official text.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've found a statement of the Deutsche [[19]]: There is no copyright on invalid DM-coins and banknotes.

There is also no copyright on valid Euro-coins and banknotes [20], see also §3 at |Abbildung von Banknoten zu Werbe- und anderen Zwecken and §2 at der Kommission zum urheberrechtlichen Schutz des Münzbilds der gemeinsamen Seite der Euro-Münzen for the common sites of coins. --Drdoht 11:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, your first link just confirms that non-copyright protections don't apply to coins and banknotes which are no longer legal tender. (Though it still more or less requests reproductions to respect the previous legal restrictions.) This says nothing about the copyright situation. The euro thing I'm less clear on. Rd232 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-GermanGov-currency. Rd232 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Free for public use

Hello, I've an enquiry on my talk page whether uploading maps from http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/cmaps/eur.htm would be Ok. On this website of the European Commission one can read:

“ The maps are free for public use, their reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged:
PVGIS © European Communities, 2001-2008 		”
  • Do we already have a license-template for this case?
  • What does free for public use mean? Is it suitable for Commons?

Thanks in advance and Regards -- Rillke(q?) 11:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The specific notice refers to a second page, which refers to a third page, which explains the policy frame about the reuse of documents. The expression "free for public use", used in the specific notice, can probably be unserstood to include the notion of reuse as developed in the policy frame, which specifies in its article 4 that the reuse is unrestricted unless the specific notice imposes conditions such as mentioning the source, or not distorting the message, etc. The specific notice for the maps includes only a restriction to acknowledge the source, a situation which, in reference to the policy frame, can be interpreted, I suppose, as meaning that there is no other restriction. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Asclepias, so {{Attribution}}'s terms would be the closed to what they've specified or is there a better template for this job? -- Rillke(q?) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think yes, the attribution tag would probably do, provided the uploaders insert the required acknowledgement with each upload. Maybe try to get more opinions, though. Also, if you expect a large number of files to be uploaded to Commons from that source, a new specific template could be created, with the acknowledgement already inserted. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PVGIS-jrc-EU-upload - uploaded. -- Rillke(q?) 22:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

PD-ineligible and de minimis: postcards with stamps

I see a few cases like File:KZ Lichtenburg - Sammellager.JPG and File:Cover Austria 1938-650px.jpg tagged {{PD-ineligible}}, even though it includes a stamp which on its own is not. Does de minimis cover the stamp? And is the postcard in such cases really ineligible? Rd232 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles using these images talk about the stamps. Then, it's hard to argue for "de minimis" when the image is used to illustrate the stamps - or at least, the fact that stamps from different countries are being used at the same time.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point. Now what? Rd232 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up with the joker poster deletions. When the 'joker poster' is copyright but de minimis in an image. The name of the file is joker poster and used in a joker poster article. Does the name of the file and usage negate allowed de minimis of the image? If I called the file 'protest in the park' and used it in a protest article would the same image be allowed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think so... Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cover Austria 1938-650px.jpg should give guidance for similar cases. Rd232 (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Euro notes and coins

Looking at COM:EURO and {{Money-EU}}, I'm slightly confused as to the licensing logic. (i) it clearly says the notes are ECB copyright. (ii) it says the notes may be reproduced subject to certain restrictions. (iii) those restrictions are not met by most of the images using the template. How is that OK? See also Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Euro_coin_common_face_2 for coins. I would have thought the summary for Euro should be {{NotOK}} except possibly the national side of Euro coins (which are subject to national laws), and {{Money-EU}} deleted or converted into a speedy-delete template. If not, why not? Rd232 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The acceptability of the euro banknotes on Commons, and of the template:Money-EU associated to them, is in practice still undecided. That template was caught in a cycle of successive deletions and recreations, all for not very good reasons. The last cycle went somewhat like this: An occasional user (I don't remember his username, unfortunately the logs don't display the creation of non-media pages) recreated the template. A regular user tagged it for deletion, because it was a recreation of a previously deleted template. Then I added a comment to the discussion, about the whole process. The initial problem was that that template was deleted following a discussion about the merits of a different template and of a different type of images (euro coins), and the different rules about the reproduction of euro banknotes were never the object of a clear evaluation on their own merit. To avoid repeating here my comments, I refer you to the bottom of the page Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Money-EU, where it is explained. Basically, I concluded that it would be nice if people would clearly tell if, and for what reasons exactly, the images of the euro banknotes should be accepted or rejected, and if an admin could close the deletion request one way or the other, with a clear statement of the reason, specifically about this template. Unfortunately, nobody else commented in the deletion request, and after three weeks Jcb closed the deletion request as "kept" (with a non-sequitur reason). So, actually, the matter is still pending. If we want to settle it, someone should probably reopen the deletion request. Hopefully this time people will comment and evaluate specifically the rules about the reproduction of euro banknotes and then it can be closed clearly. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. If no other comments are forthcoming, I'll re-open the DR in a day or two. Rd232 (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Money-EU Rd232 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Israeli FOP and Australian Aboriginal Flag

We've had a number of deletion discussions on the Australian Aboriginal Flag, and as far as I know, images have consistently been deleted (see Category:Australian Aboriginal flag related deletion requests). Although it probably doesn't meet the threshold of originality in the US, an Australian court has held that it is copyrighted. A current deletion discussion has an interesting twist on this: a photo of the flag was taken in Israel, and it seems that it might fall under Israel's expansive FOP. If you can shed any light on this, please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aboriginal Flag.JPG. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no point to talk about FoP in a case like this. FoP matters only when a photographed work is not free. FoP is irrelevant when the work photographed is free in the first place. For example, in this case, Israel's FoP does not matter if the photographed flag is free in Israel (as it is almost everywhere except Australia). Israel's FoP doesn't have anything to do with the arguments about the representations of that flag on Commons.
That case has no new twist. Basically, it is the same situation as when a user, in a country other than Australia, makes a drawing of that flag and uploads it to Commons. It is the same question: should Commons reject legal files like this because the work represented is under copyright in one country only that happens to be the country where that work had been first published? Some people answer yes, others answer no. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Because of the wide variation in copyright rules (100 years pma in Mexico, for example), many of our images are under copyright in some countries. That is why we have the clear rule that an image must be free in its home country (Israel in this case) and in the USA. Since the flag does not pass the TOO in either the USA or Israel, the image is OK for Commons. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The claim is that it can't be ignored that the original country of publication for the flag design is Australia... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The place where is the object (Israel) doesn't recongnize it as a work of art or a copyrightable design, due to threshold of originality. Then, in Israel - or in most of the world - we could not say that it is the same work that was published in Australia, just as a plain colour blanked wouldn't be "the same work" published anywhere else where a plain blanket of the same colour has been shown.
The only issue that casts a doubt is that we tag the image as "Australian Aboriginal Flag", thus recognizing at some extent that it is the same work.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

PD-Seal-Germany v PD-Coa-Germany

I've just found {{PD-Seal-Germany}}. Surely this is redundant to {{PD-Coa-Germany}}? Is there a difference between seals/logos/coats of arms? Shall we redirect {{PD-Seal-Germany}} (not internationalized) to the other template? Rd232 (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure seems identical to me; they are based on the same law. That redirect would make sense. There is a slight technical difference -- seals are the devices used to mark documents as being official, and (most often) are a depiction of a coat of arms (though tye could be other designs). Not sure that's really enough difference for two tags though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think seal is here used as a loose synonym for "coat of arms". Seals that aren't coats of arms might not necessarily be official works; but I've only seen it used for coats of arms. Rd232 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
§ 5 Abs. 1 UrhG does not mention seals or logos. Merging those templates sounds like a good idea, yet we should identify why seals and logos of a corporation governed by public law are in the public domain. I think the initial reason to create this template was based on German legal literature. However, a rough Google search didn't reveal any suitable results. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I put a note at the top of Template talk:PD-Coa-Germany summarising the logic. Essentially, official Coats of Arms are by their nature official works - that's the point of them. The adoption of a coat of arms by a corporation makes it an official work, and that's why it's covered. de:Amtliches Wappen is quite clear, and de:Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen_für_Bilder give Coats of Arms as an example for de:template:Bild-PD-Amtliches Werk. Rd232 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Files in Category:2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony

I suppose that parts of the opening show of 2012 Olympics are eligible for copyright. That may apply for particular scenes with special decorations, costumes, light effects, etc. (something like that or that, where no de minimis could pass). If so, then some files from this category are derivatives and cannot be released under CC-BY-SA unless there is a permission by the original author. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks - A.Savin 19:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are completely correct. Stage sets, even the green hill shown in many of the images, have copyrights. I suspect that most of these images infringe on the creators' copyrights. I also know that the IOOC is notorious for aggressive enforcement of its trademarks and copyrights. I don't know if that is true of the London organizers, but it would not surprise me. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks, now I've nominated some of them there. - A.Savin 09:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

NASA's pictures problem

I went through [this article] and decided to move some pictures there to Common in order to use them on French wiki. The original uploader used NASA World Wind, an offline software, to make those images, and they noted the source was NASA; there's no online NASA page having these pictures. However, Common notices me to provide source of these files. Here's [an example]. Please help.république (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem: PD status depends on the dataset used. World Wind notes that FAQ says "Are images on World Wind copyrighted?" - "The Landsat Global Mosaic, Blue Marble, and the USGS raster maps and images are all Public Domain." See also en:NASA World Wind. Maybe we should make a source template for the program, requiring the user to specify the dataset used? Rd232 (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I'm a newbie, so it's not easy to comprehend those "Landsat", "Blue Marble", really tricks me. However, through [this one], I found the real "source" of those files: oceandot[dot]com. I'm not sure if it's a legitimate source for Commons, but [this one] still seems to be alive on Commons.république (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC) As the uploader of Scar.S named his file, it seems like those images I moved to Commons were from Landsat dataset.république (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
NASA World Wind is just a program; it doesn't do anything without data. And it's the data that generates the copyright. Different datasets have different copyrights. That Scarborough example is from Landsat which is PD. The Bombay Reef example is from an ISS dataset originally from earth sciences and image analysis laboratory, nasa johnson space center I think (oceandots helped find it via their copy). This material seems subject to the usual NASA PD terms ([21]). Rd232 (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Great. Thank you so much, Rd232! république (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a template: {{PD-WorldWind}}. Rd232 (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

3D walt disney character

Hi, some years ago, my picture of Scrooge was deleted. Today, I uploaded it again, slightly modified. I think this picture is my copyright, because its a picture of a 3d object. Can it be retained this time? Regards, Elly (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The image has three copyrights:

  • Disney's Scrooge McDuck
  • The sculptor / woodcarver who created the figure
  • The photographer

In order to keep it here, we would need licenses from all three and Disney will certainly not cooperate. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Official policy page Commons:Fan art... AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly French Copyright question

I uploaded a publicity image as PD from this eBay source. The image is dated 1972 and shows all margins along with the reverse side, and no copyright notice. The person is a French actress, but has worked for many non-French film companies. What are the copyright rules for this, since I couldn't find a France-related tag? Also, the closest movie date-wise to 1972 that she was in was The Appointment, an American film made in 1969.

The other question is about deletion procedures on the Commons. It was summarily deleted without tagging or any notice, with an edit summary, (Removing "Anouk_aimee_-_publicity.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation: no verification of US origin.). I haven't experienced that kind of summary deletion before, without notice or even informing me after the fact, and would like to know what the rules are, if any. This also relates to my last question in the above post. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

French copyright rules are 70 years after the photographer's death. For a 1972 photo, there is zero chance that has passed, and it could easily be under copyright for another 50-90 years. If anonymous, it would be 70 years from publication, which is still 30 years away. You probably should have been notified on your talk page, but without a strong indication that the photo was first published (or at least initially simultaneously published) in the United States, it's pretty much an immediate speedy deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If this information can be of any use to you, this image is from a scene in the 1968 Franco-Belgian film Un soir... un train. A colour photo of the scene can be seen on this website. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to notice admins that I've added source for images?

Hello. First I transferred some NASA's images to Commons, then I was notified that they needed sources. I've finished adding important information for the images, like this one and this one. It may be a silly question but do I need to notice admins that I've added sources for images, so they can remove warning? Thank you. république (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I guess that depends. Usually it should be enough just to wait until someone browses the according category (Category:Media without a source as of 28 July 2012 in this case) and removes it, but if you are not sure if you did it correctly and/or would like to have some feedback, you may of course ask. If the case is as obvious as File:BombayReef.jpg you could even be bold and remove it yourself, though I would not really recommend that (in this case I did that for you and replaced the {{PD-USGov-NASA}} by the more specific {{PD-USGov-NASA-AP}}). Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, El Grafo! république (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/07&oldid=160866489"