Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/10

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

Contents

Commercial use and location restrictions

I have always assumed that venues and places (private and therefore non-FOP) that allow photography but disallow commercial photography or using the photos for commercial purposes are not compatible with licenses allowing commercial use (and therefore all licenses on Commons). However, I have not found good documentation or evidence for this point and have often seen other interpretations. One example: According to this, almost every photo here would require a permission, which some may have, but most probably don't.

I would be thankful for a link or clear information concerning this point. It would also be interesting whether, if this is illegal, one can delete the photos in question or whether the position of Commons is then that it's the photographer's personal problem that he has broken the law and the photos are not deleted to possibly protect him.

The country of interest here is Germany, but I would expect the legal situation concerning this to be similar in many countries. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You can read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Ruslik (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, You can see also the page Commons:Image casebook#Museum and interior photography and apply the principles to a zoo or other venue mutatis mutandis. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. These texts answer the question for the case when photography is forbidden altogether, and state that this doesn't affect the copyright status of the photos. What I'm uncertain about is the case when commercial photography is forbidden, which is in itself only a copyright restriction and not a "house rule" as it doesn't affect what I do within the venue at all. If house rules wouldn't affect copyright, this rule had no effect at all (as the commercial character of the work is not decided at the moment of taking the photo, but only later). But since this is a common rule, I do think it has some effect, so I wonder what it is. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 17:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It's still not a copyright restriction. The zoo doesn't own a copyright on the animals. If a restriction even exists, it's a personal contractual agreement concluded between the visitor and the zoo at the moment of the visit and by which the parties agree to perform immediate or future obligations. ("We agree to allow your presence in our zoo today and as a counterpart you agree to not allow commercial publication of the photos you take there today.") The photographer himself is the person who is personally concerned and who is best placed to know: 1) if he did or did not enter into a contractual agreement in the first place, 2) if there was a contract, what the clauses are, and 3) if there were restrictions, what permission he did or did not obtain to lift the restrictions. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I think that's what I wanted to know. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 20:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
That said, it can be different if a particular photo is focused on a copyrighted work, like a recent sculpture. Then the permission of the owner of the copyright on the work (the creator of the work or his successor, not the landlord of the place) would be required to publicly use the photo in a country where there is no FoP for that type of work. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I think in practice, Commons only cares about such restrictions if the photographer actually signed a contract specifying no commercial use, as opposed to merely a sign in the venue, a statement on the venue's website, printing on the back of a ticket, etc. For example, one of Diliff's featured pictures had to be deleted due to a contract he signed. --King of ♠ 00:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I think in practice we've deleted pictures that the photographer felt uncomfortable about violating the restrictions on, no matter how it was expressed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The short answer: if you are comfortable risking being sued for a contract violation, we are happy to host the works under a free license. A contract only affects its signatories, and no one else can be held liable for use of the work, commercial or otherwise. We do not promise to delete the works if you are threatened or sued, but we would entertain a request. In the ensuing discussion we would weigh risk to the author against benefit to the public. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Dcoetzee, that is not correct in Germany which is where I assume the requestor is based. The Federal High Court recently considered a similar case to that described by Julian; according to the decision, not only the creation but also the use of such images constitutes a violation of property rights; liability may even extend to the operator of an internet site offering the images despite the fact that the website owner had absolutely nothing to do with the creation process.
Julian, I allow myself to switch to German. Wie bereits gesagt wurde, tangieren hausrechtliche Schranken grundsätzlich nicht die urheberrechtliche Nutzbarkeit. So wie in deinem beschriebenen Fall eines Zoos lag es auch in dem unter de:WP:DÜP/S#Bundesgerichtshof – Preußische Schlösser und Gärten (Hausrecht) beschriebenen Sachverhalt. Panoramafreiheit war innerhalb des Gartens nicht anwendbar, die Anfertigung von Fotos erlaubt, jedoch unter Genehmigungsvorbehalt, sobald diese kommerziell genutzt werden. Wenn man diese Regeln umgeht und ein entstandenes Bild im Verstoß gegen diese Einschränkung kommerziell nutzt, dann verletzt man das Grundstückseigentum des Park- bzw. Zooeigentümers. "Das Eigentum an einem Grundstück wird aber dann durch (das Anfertigen und) die Verwertung von Filmaufnahmen von auf ihm errichteten Gebäuden und auf ihm angelegten Gartenanlagen beeinträchtigt, wenn das Grundstück zur Anfertigung solcher Aufnahmen betreten wird." (BGH, Urt. v. 17.12.2010, V ZR 46/10 -- Preußische Schlösser und Gärten) Man verletzt dann die entsprechenden Rechte, weil es dem Eigentümer freisteht, nur bestimmte Arten der Nutzung (eben die nichtkommerzielle) genehmigungsfrei zuzulassen (Rn. 24). Der entscheidende Punkt im Zitat ist "durch die Verwertung". Der BGH weitet die in Wikipedia oft als rein im Innenverhältnis von Fotograf und Eigentümer bestehend wahrgenommene Problematik damit freilich deutlich aus. Es haftet nicht nur derjenige, der Aufnahmen anfertigt, sondern potenziell auch der, der eine andere Person mit der Herstellung beauftragt (Rn. 33), eine Fotoagentur betreibt, die die Bilder im Internet vermarktet (Parallelsache V ZR 45/10) oder eine Internetplattform betreibt, auf der gewerblich und frei beruflich tätige Fotografen Fotos zum entgeltlichen Herunterladen ins Internet stellen können (bei letzterem scheiterte der Anspruch allerdings an der Zumutbarkeit der Prüfpflicht im Erstbegehungsfall). Kurzum: Wir sollten Vorsicht walten lassen. Der Punkt ist nur, dass man den Bildern ja nicht ansieht, ob eine kommerzielle Verwertung mit dem Eigentümer abgeklärt wurde oder nicht. Ich kann dem Hochlader eines entsprechenden Bildes schlecht pauschal unterstellen, dass sein Foto nicht rechtmäßig verwertet wird. Spätestens dann, wenn wir davon erfahren, dass eine entsprechende Genehmigung nicht vorlagt, sollte man aber auch löschen. (Das ist auch das Argument für die Ablehnung der Hostprovider-Haftung, siehe die Parallelsache V ZR 44/10 unten.) Nebenbei sei bemerkt, dass so gut wie jeder in der Fachwelt die Argumentation des BGH ablehnt -- Wikipedia-Nutzer sowieso --, aber so ist es nun einmal. — Pajz (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing the licence of an image

I currently have an article on Wikipedia undergoing a Good Article review and a question has arisen over the copyright licence of the image File:Invalids' walk, Bournemouth, Dorset, England, 1890s.jpg. See here [[1]]. Is it acceptable for me to change the licence myself and if so, is it as simple as clicking edit and adding {{PD-1923}}.

I have brought this up at the help desk but they have suggested I bring it here to be on the safe side.--Ykraps (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To be identical, your wording may be missing a line about published before 1923, but otherwise it is quite the same as if you had made the description through Template:LOC-pchrom. Technically, I suppose you can add PD-1923, yes, or just use LOC-pchrom. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It's always worth adding the date of publication to the file if you're adding a published pre-1923 tag to a file though. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done by Prosfilaes.[2] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Kicad_main_window.png

As the license for w:KiCad itself is GNU GPL v2, I believe its screenshot (containing the graphics that are part of w:KiCad) inherits its license, and (contrary to its Licensing section) is not available under either GNU FDL or CC BY-SA (unless also so released by the author of such graphics.)

I wonder how do I fix this issue, and also how the software screenshots and their licensing should be described in general?

TIA.

Ivan Shmakov (dc) 17:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No copyright statement

Can anyone help me with how I tell if images from the 1979 BL Training Course booklet for the slant 4 engines available at this site - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz1MK9YiTPtjak45NWhPa0JSd0E/edit?usp=sharing -, can be uploaded, and if so what licence to select? I’ve looked through it, and there’s no copyright statement or information indicating a proprietary nature to the document; which seems surprising by even BL’s procedures. I’ve asked the guy who posted it, and there’s nothing on the back of the back cover, which is not actually shown (I may be able to get him to add that if it’s liable to present a problem). --Graham.Fountain (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you know where and when this training booklet was first published? If it was first published in the UK by BL in 1979, then it is almost certainly still covered by copyright in both the UK and the US, and as such can't be uploaded to Commons. It's more interesting if we have evidence that this booklet was first published in the U.S. If was first published in the U.S. in 1979 without a copyright notice, and without subsequent copyright registration within 5 years, then it could be uploaded to Commons using {{PD-US-1989}} license tag. Unfortunately, the tricky part of that would be finding evidence of where and when the first publication occurred. —RP88 12:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Carlb-hwy401-lastkm-682.jpg

Im curious about the likelyhood of this image being covered under Freedom of Panorama provisions in Canada, specifically the text. -- Nbound (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you can simply mark it as {{PD-text}} as it is only contains Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship. Ruslik (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
{{PD-Text}} refers to exactly what it says. Once you start expanding into paragraphs, not so much. If this was cited as a source and copied word for word onto an en.wiki article, its likely it would be removed. There is little reason to assume otherwise with an image, unless there is an exception (FoP, etc.) - which is why I started this thread. -- Nbound (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the PD-text license template would not be appropriate for this image. While I believe the photo is covered by FoP in Canada (I believe the plaque falls on the side of "work of artistic craftsmanship"), that doesn't necessarily mean the text itself is PD. To figure out if the text is PD, we need to know when the text was first published and by whom. While the text could have been published before it was put on permanent public display as part of the plaque, we don't have any evidence of that. Unfortunately, we don't even know when the commemorative plaque was first put on permanent public display (although for obvious reasons it's very unlikely to have been any earlier than 1968). Even in the best case, where the text is subject to Crown Copyright, If the date of first publication for the text is 1968 then the text will enter the public domain 50 years after publication, circa 2018. So the text itself is very unlikely to be PD. I've added {{FoP-Canada}} to the photo. —RP88 12:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks RP88 - I thought it might Face-smile.svg... If anyone else has a counterargument, it would be good to hear, otherwise we can consider this one done and dusted :) -- Nbound (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I figured FoP applied since the plaque is part of a monument, and not simply a flat posterboard as is commonly found at historical sites. The use of the content in an article is for the alt text of the image. - Floydian (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh I wasnt aware you were using it as the alt-text- that will probably have to be deleted (or better: alternatively paraphrased/summarised in a fairly different way) - FoP doesnt extend to reusing the text. The copyright on the text is not lost, its just agreed that in a photograph with that context you cant be judged to have produced infringing copy. We cant transribe and reuse anything we took a picture of. -- Nbound (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The alt text transcribes the image for our visually impaired readers using a screenreader. I hardly see how that could be raised as a copyright issue given the use of the image itself. - Floydian (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Because the text is copyrighted (until shown otherwise). If this were a Harry Potter novel or something you surely wouldnt retype it word-for-word. You dont need to transcribe what the plaque says word-for-word either, you can treat it like you would any other source and get the same point across in a different way. FoP is a limited exception to enforcable copyright, it does not actually make something free to re-use. -- Nbound (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
If there is an exception under US copyright law that allows the plaque to be transcribed word-for-word for those with perceptual disabilities this may be a way around this -- Nbound (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
U.S. copyright law does have a special provision (17 USC § 121) permitting the transcription of copyrighted works for the blind without the permission of the copyright holder. However, the exception requires that the transcription be "a specialized format exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities." To comply with this restriction, U.S. organizations that rely on this exception to electronically distribute transcriptions generally use DRM to protect the transcripts and only distribute copies to those who have a doctor verify their disability. Obviously none of the current WIkimedia Foundation projects can make use of this exception. —RP88 09:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Many countries have similar provisions. This means, for example, that you can create a Braille transcription or a sound recording for blind people. This is irrelevant here as the use isn't specifically directed to blind people. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
My opinion that the FoP in Canada applies to the plaque isn't because it is part of a monument, it's because, in my opinion, several features of the plaque transform it from a two-dimensional work to a "sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship". These features include the use of a raised edge, raised characters, and a psuedo-relief sculptural coat of arms. —RP88 09:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on the FoP (if this plaque were not embossed or as highly stylised, its very unlikely that even FoP would apply to it). And thanks for the US copyright information, thats very interesting to know :). -- Nbound (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It would seem that FOP applies to the embossing and to the sign but not to the text on the sign. I think that we have had similar signs deleted. The text is not artistic craftsmanship, and it is dubious whether the sign is artistic. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Determining what is a work of "artistic craftsmanship" seems to be a thorny area (see e.g. the "Works of Artistic Craftsmanship" section, pp 4-11, in this article). I tend to think this plaque isn't, but I'm not sure. I think it could hinge on whether producers of such works generally view them as artistic. --Avenue (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Utakoshi Station.jpg

This source of this image is: [ja.wikipedia.org], and has a Creative Commons template of

© The copyright holder of this file, 国土交通省, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.
Attribution: 国土交通省「国土画像情報(カラー空中写真)」(配布元:国土地理院地図・空中写真閲覧サービス

Notice
English: When you use this image on an article, please include the following phrase or equivalent for attribution and citation: "National Land Image Information (Color Aerial Photographs), created by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, distributed by Geospatial Information Authority of Japan."
日本語: この画像を表示する時は『国土交通省「国土画像情報(カラー空中写真)」(配布元:国土地理院地図・空中写真閲覧サービス)』というテキストまたはそれに相当するテンプレート等を出典として標記してください。

. Is cutting and pasting from that template text enough for copyright/licensing info on image, or do I need to go a step further? Thanks ---> Prburley (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The source image on JA WP isn't creative commons, it's an attribution license. The Commons license tag for Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism aerial images is {{AerialPhotograph-mlitJP}}. I've fixed the license tag for you. —RP88 18:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful. Thanks so much! ---> Prburley (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You should also include an original upload log and nominate the file for speedy deletion on Japanese Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparent Public Domain imagery is NOT public domain

I have been speaking to both the Imperial War Museum and National Archives in the UK concerning using images for commercial purposes posted on WIkimedia (quite a vast number) and imagery which is credited as being Imperial War Museum source is NOT public domain and requires licensing fees for use. The same apparently goes for any HMSO owned images including the UK National Archives.

I have quoted the message's posted concerning expiration of Crown Copyrights on material over 50 years but apparently you still need a licence. The legal term 'public domain' does not actually exist in the UK according to both departments. Can anyone shed light on this from a legal perspective? Seem to be going around in circles :-)

This makes me wonder if other clearly marked 'public domain images' are in fact public domain unless part of co-operation projects like Bundesarchiv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modiphius (talk • contribs) 09:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In an earlier discussion I called that "leaving a shop without paying"... --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
With regards to your request for advice "from a legal perspective" on your commercial endeavor, this is something that we can't provide. For that kind of advice, please speak to a competent intellectual property lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. However, if you'd like to discuss a specific files' copyright issues, we can do that. To that end, could you please link to a particular file that you think is a good example of your concerns? Oh, and with regard to the lack of the term "public domain" in the UK, you're either listening to bad advice or misconstruing their statements. It's easy to show that it is used as a term of art in the UK, for example, a quick search shows that even the UK Intellectual Property Office (the official government body responsible for granting copyright in the UK) uses the term on their website and in their introduction to copyright booklet. —RP88 11:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
If it helps, there's a useful, easy-to-follow diagram on Crown Copyright here, and a longer text version here. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

COM:PRP and the UK Threshold of Originality on text on signs

As the two admins trying to keep File:Fellgate Metro station, 2 August 2006 (2).jpg deleted at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests are ignoring the specific question, I've decided to bring it here for wider input (and as it is a specific question, please try to provide specific response, as the general issues are already known). The question is, if you draft 60 words of text by bringing together some commonly used phrases that are clearly not original, in order to create a sign whose purpose is also neither original or unique (or in any way intended to be creative or artworthy, it is a simple public information message), is it remotely within the bounds of the precautionary principle to think it's reasonable that a UK court would likely rule that those 60 words do cross the threshold of originality required in order for it to be considered an original literary work eligible for copyright protection? I think the very idea is totally ludicrous, not least because it sets the bar so low as to be practically meaningless, but as said, the specific issue of the status of a sign like this is being ignored in favour of generic claims that anything in the UK that is over 60 words is always considered original enough to be copyrighted, which is clearly not a precautionary approach at all, it's way beyond it. Ultra7 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As seems to be usual for this site, the non-responsiveness in the debate has been followed up by a lazy template biolerplate (which is ironic) closure endorsing the patently unproven notion that this sign is "non-free". So I guess this question is now moot. But if anyone would like to reassure me that there is anyone on this site who has even a tiny clue about copyright, and that there are at least some people on this site actually willing to put more than a micro-second of thought into issues like this, then feel free to respond. Ultra7 (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Questionable copyright status of the subject, and this subject is potentially covered by copyright (saying "of course it isn't" doesn't make you right - especially as you haven't found any evidence to support it), and we default to deletion. I would also point out that this image could be deleted on COM:SCOPE grounds alone, what educational use is this image? Bear in mind you can discuss the smoking ban etc with text alone, making the image almost redundant in the context of most wiki articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I haven't simply said it, I've explained specifically why no court would ever consider this to be an original literary work. I can't present any evidence to support that beyond pointing out what the sign actually says and what it's used for, and referring to the basic copyright concepts in play for literary works, like originality and novel use. That really should be enough, PRP or no PRP, especially when the other side is providing absolutely no evidence at all for their view. As for SCOPE, actually, no, if the argument that this simple arrangement of some basic sentence fragments in this manner is copyrightable, then no, there is no other formulation of words that would be able to repeat it in a wiki-article without infringing the supposed copyright. Which is another good of way of illustrating exactly why the notion that there is even any doubt that this specific text is copyrighted, is not remotely plausible (and why those claiming it is are the ones who need to prove that claim, because thinking of it in that way shows that it really is an extraordinary claim). And SCOPE is irrelevant anyway - the image was deleted on copyright grounds - the issue here is whether that is correct, not whether a mistaken deletion on copyright grounds can be waved away by claiming it's could also have been deleted on other grounds (which can also easily be contested, but that's not for here). Ultra7 (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, go look for case law, you can almost guarantee that the threshold for literary works has been examined in UK courts. If as you say this is so far below the threshold as to be absurd, then those cases will give examples of unprotected works that are clearly more complex or maybe litmus tests that indicate eligibility. Both of which would prove your case. And with regards to SCOPE - that is more, why make a big deal about a work of limited educational value? If you want to examine the broader aspects of TOO fine, but that isn't about the specific sign.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Case law is for boundary issues - on looking around, I can't see any examples which deal with anything like this sort of short sign, so either it definitely is or definitely isn't copyrightable. The general advice I found simply reaffirms what I've already been saying - even utilitarian works, as this no doubt is - you cannot simply copy a few phrases and call that original. A "literary work" like this has to be the product of "effort, skill and labour" (as in coming up with the ideas expressed by the text, not simply in creating the sign). The closest I can find is the example of the skill and effort that goes into deciding the layout choice of trade catalogues or (very long & detailed) betting coupons or large tables of data, as examples of what crosses the threshold. So I don't think I am being out of order in concluding that, given the effort, skill and labour that goes into creating those examples, y comparison, sticking a few stock phrases onto a sign, is obviously going to fall well below the threshold, and that's why I can find no case law. Ultra7 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes case law explores the boundaries, and where the boundaries are tells you a lot. However my view on this have actually hardened somewhat, due to the implications of typographical copyright (protecting the layout of a work, choice of fonts etc etc). Typographic copyright hasn't really been discussed on Commons to date, because it generally has little relevance to images.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:CRT#Typographical copyright tells that the typographical copyright expires after 25 years. Many plaques and signs are older than that, so it is important to check the date of such things. Whether the text meets the threshold of originality for 70 years p.m.a. is a separate question. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The sign in question here is "obviously" more recent than that, but finding out the date of such a work could be tricky in the general case.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Image built upon Wikipedia Commons image

Am I within my rights to start with a public domain image from the commons, add annotations to it and repost on the commons? If so, how do I cite the original in the hybrid. The original is a NASA satellite map, which comes with the proviso "NASA requires that they be provided a credit as the owners of the imagery" Not sure where I would put such a notice. Camdenmaine (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. And you can post your derivative work with any free license you want, not just public domain, although you are free to use PD if you want. You can credit the original in the image description; please do not watermark the image. -- King of ♠ 21:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A question about some newspaper covers

Hi,

  • I noticed that User:Pk4wp has uploaded some covers of various Pakistani newspapers, and claimed them as "own work". The account claims to be "a group of journalists", so the "own work" claim isn't necessarily as bad as it would seem at first glance, but I'm still concerned, and account-sharing is problematic too.
  • If this really is a group of journalists, can they collectively claim "own work" over different newspapers' covers? Wouldn't copyright normally be held by the business rather than specific employees?
  • What's the best next step? bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone? Is there a better place to ask? bobrayner (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
At the minimum, aside from any issues of account sharing, this would require OTRS confirmation from each newspaper involved. Dankarl (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

File:The Battle Cry Of Freedom.ogg

I notice that the source link at the Internet Archive is no longer working; it says the file was removed "due to problems with its content". This sounds like a possible copyright violation to me, but it's awfully vague. Can someone check on this? Lee Cremeans (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. This audio appears to be a track from the album America - Jimerson, Cohen, Noble, National Military Band (also here). If the orchestra, the "National Military Band", is a U.S. military band their contribution to the track is PD, however, the vocalist on this track is Douglas Jimerson. He's still alive and is not a U.S. employee, as such this track is almost certainly not in the public domain. I've nominated it for deletion. —RP88 12:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bulk FOP deletions re Category:CowParade

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newport SuperDragons and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:CowParade in Madrid (probably more too). Another one based on "No FOP for temporary art". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've nominated others of this type previously, and the deletion requests have always been accepted. Unfortunately Freedom of panorama only applies to sculptures on permanent display. I'm also going to nominate the rest of the CowParade categories, because they are encouraging people to upload more of the same type. It's unfair to users of Commons to be publishing these as supposedly free images, when they are encumbered by the copyright of the sculptors. ghouston (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Why? When Commons:FOP#Mexico allows such photos to be hosted on Commons, and we have Category:Cow parade in Tijuana. russavia (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Mexico can be an exception - I didn't know any countries omitted the "permanent" condition. I did intend to check the country-specific rules just in case. ghouston (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Bobby Dodd football card and Bobby Dodd Jr. football card

User:JuTa; I saw the notices posted on my talk page regarding Bobby Dodd football card and Bobby Dodd Jr. football card. The instructions include the following "you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page)." I followed these instructions for both images. Also, these football cards were published in 1955 and 1961 respectively. The original copyright for these cards expired after 28 years per this website. Finally, the images of these cards can be found on E-Bay and many other card trading websites, so these images are in the public domain. These images are currently being used on Bobby Dodd article on Wikepedia. Therefore please let me know what is required to keep these images from being removed from Wikimedia Commons? Thanks in advance for your help - Mistercontributer (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the main problem with your images is, that there is just no license template on the description pages. Every image on Commons has to use one or multiple of those templates, which are valid for the imdividual image. In your case it woul be most probarbly {{PD-US-not renewed}}. But normaly this requires some research that the copyright has been realy not been renewed. You better ask on Commons:Help desk because I don't know how to do this research. Once this has been done successfully you can put the license template onto th description pages an remove th problem tags. regards. --JuTa 04:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The above was copied from User:JuTa talk page. Please let me know how to complete the required research described above to determine whether or not the copyright was renewed for these football cards? Thanks - Mistercontributer (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
OK-I see that the maker of the cards was Topps, so I went to http://www.copyright.gov (US copyright website) and did a search there using Topps under the "Name" (name of the company) option. I went through their listings for Topps and I didn't find any renewals for any of their cards, so I licensed them both for you as copyright not renewed. HTH, We hope (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! :) Mistercontributer (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo question

photo link This was taken in 1976 by a California photographer who didn't mark it as copyright. The description re: lone producer in England is what I'm wondering about. I don't know if the photo was done in the UK by a US photographer and because of that, am not sure it can be used here or needs to go to en:wp. Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

If the photos were published in USA before 1978 without a copyright notice (or published before 1989 without a copyright notice and not registered with the US copyright office within 5 year) then they are in public domain. Otherwise they are copyrighted 70 pma. Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It's stamped as used in 1976. Thanks! We hope (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the photo was published in 1976 (as opposed simply taken in 1976)? For that matter, even if it was first published in 1976, how do you know it wasn't published with a copyright notice? It could have been first published via distribution of prints with a copyright notice on the back or, if it was first published in a book or periodical, the copyright notice for the entire collective work would cover the photo. —RP88 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait, I see you've uploaded it as File:Albert Cubby Broccoli 1976.JPG with both a front and back. Excellent! As you note on that uploaded image, the back appears to have no copyright statement, so that is good news. In addition, since this was a photo distributed to the press, that distribution to the press might count as the first publication. I recall some attempting to claim that the limited distribution of publicity photos to newspapers isn't distribution to the public, and hence not publication, in which you'd have to check to see if a copyright notice is present on the the periodicals that used the photo. However, I think you're fine. —RP88 16:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
One potential complication: If it is of UK origin and first published there (not simultaneously in the US) It would still be under copyright there and I think restored under URAA. Dankarl (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

File deletion

Hi

I'm looking to delete a file which is a picture of myself I no longer want on the website.

The image is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LUKE.jpg

Thanks

Luke

I'd say that's out of Commons' scope, so I've deleted it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

OpenStreetMaps: correct licensing

Hi, what is the correct licensing of the OSM maps and maps based on the OSM tiles, like this one? --Eleassar (t/p) 07:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

According to [3], it's Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0. ghouston (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I know there are some templates specifically for the OSM maps (Template:OpenStreetMap, Template:ODbL OpenStreetMap), but am not sure which one to choose. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that the idea is that you should use both {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. The template {{OpenStreetMap}} includes a full {{information}} template. If the file was extracted from Openstreetmap before the project switched to ODbL, use {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} only. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I've added the mentioned templates, so there are three license tags on the page currently: {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}, {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}, and {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. Is this ok now or is any of them redundant? The image was uploaded on 28 September 2012; presumably, the file was extracted in the same month. When did the project switch to ODbl? --Eleassar (t/p) 10:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
{{cc-by-sa-2.0}} is probably redundant to {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} as derivative works of a CC-BY-SA 2.0 work can be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. The uploader isn't the copyright holder to Openstreetmap, so you can't use {{self}} if you decide to drop {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. According to w:Openstreetmap#Licensing, the licence change was in September 2012. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The file contains a superimposed map by the uploader, that's why the self tag. I'll leave both tags for the underlying map, because I'm not sure when was the file extracted, and it's better to err on the side of redundancy. Thank you for the information. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
An additional question: the superimposed map in File:Emona in ljubljana osm.jpg seems to be based on this map. Do you think the former is a derived work of the latter and thus a copyright violation? --Eleassar (t/p) 10:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not a copyright violation. It's just a different map of the same place. Since the place itself is a reconstruction, both maps share the same data, and one could have been used as a reference to make the other one. This is like when an editor writes an article in Wikipedia using his own works but taking facts from a book. In Wikipedia, this is called en:Wikipedia:Verifiability, and it's quite different from copyvio.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Also confirmed by User:NordNordWest. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm also not convinced that the superimposed map meets the threshold of originality. There have been some court rulings in the Nordic countries which have found certain technical drawings to be below the threshold of originality, and the superimposed map is presumably PD-ineligible in the Nordic countries per those rulings. The copyright status might of course be different in other countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A similar question

I have a similar question. File:La Costera WIWOSM.png is copied from the OSM map in a Catalan Wikipedia article. The underlying map comes from OSM but the points are from Wikipedia data. I tagged it with {{OpenStreetMap}}. Should I use instead a CC-BY-SA-3.0 tag as a derivative work of OSM and Wikipedia?--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Holst Second Suite for Military Band on IMSLP

Hi,

Do you think these files [4] are free as public domain? See template:PD-USGov-Military-Air Force. --Akaniji (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As for the musical work itself, I think so: Holst died in 1934, meaning that his work is PD in the UK (70 years p.m.a.), and this particular work is from 1911, so I assume first publication prior to 1923, which makes it PD in the U.S. as well and URAA copyright restoration unlikely (works by Holst first published in 1923 or later might still be protected in the U.S. as they were not free in their country of origin at the URAA date of January 1, 1996). As for the recording: Well... was it made as part of the band member's "official duties"? If yes, then PD, if not, then not PD, I'd say... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Gestumblindi, Holst's score is PD. As regards to the recording, if you click the "Flourishes" link in the Publisher section of the that page on IMSLP, you'll see that these four files originate from Flourishes on heritageofamericaband.af.mil. So, yes, {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} is the correct license tag (although you will want to indicate the actual source at heritageofamericaband.af.mil, not imslp.org). One complication is that these files are in the MP3 file format. Unfortunately, Commons cannot accept MP3 sound files since MP3 is a patented file format. You'll need to convert the files to one of the supported free formats before uploading. —RP88 23:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
By the way - I think Commons can accept MP3 files from 2018, as the patents will be expired by then in the U.S., too, if en:Mp3#Licensing and patent issues is correct ("patents required to implement MP3 expired in most countries by December 2012, 21 years after the publication of ISO CD 11172 ... An exception is the United States ... The various MP3-related patents expire on dates ranging from 2007 to 2017 in the U.S.") Gestumblindi (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gestumblindi and RP88! --Akaniji (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

LookLex images

Hi, I'm not sure about the licensing of LookLex images, like File:HannibalTheCarthaginian.jpg. The site at first states: "LookLex offers any user free use of photos from our web site, provided you follow the following regulations for crediting and linking." At this site, it states: "For use that is best understood as commercial, fill in the form on this page." At this site, it states: "Commercial use that fits within defined regulations, is free. For non-commercial use, fill in the form on this page." The site does not offer any e-mail and the contact form does not allow to enter more than a few characters. I think this is a mess, and we would do best by deleting the images from this site (as much as I can see, there are three such images) per 'unclear copyright'. What do you think? --Eleassar (t/p) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

On one "regulations" page [5], there seems to be a no-derivatives restriction. They write: "You are free to change size, use borders, other fonts etc. Actual changes to the content should only happen with." Obviously, at least one word is missing in their second sentence, but from the context we can guess that the idea is probably something like "should only happen with permission". Thus, people who want to do modifications or other uses outside the "regulations" should request permission. On another "regulations" page [6] (how many different "regulations" pages do they have?) they write: "Reuse on the web of photos is allowed [...] for every purpose (except resale) with up to 10 images at one time." That is limitative. And it seems limited to some media and some uses. So, it looks like their content is not freely available in the sense needed for Wikimedia.
That said, the particular photo of the bust of Hannibal that you link above may not be their photo but may have been copied from somewhere else. It looks very much (exactly the same angle and lighting) like File:Mommsen p265.jpg, except for the background color and one version is cropped. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Davie's tree in 1850.PNG

(This request was first made at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions [7])

Yesterday I uploaded this scanned file which was obtained from "J.P.Lewis. "The captivity of Major Davie". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Ceylon. 1923;XXIX (76).p 185" I was under the impression that the image was actually drawn by J.K.L Vandort in 1850. But when going through the image list of the journal I saw that it is attributed to "JPL -1914, after a pencil sketch by J.K.L Vandort in 1850". it seems the true author was J.P Lewis the author of the journal article. I can't find J.P. Lewis's year of death. But it seems that he passed away before July 1944. ([8] page 6 - last paragraph.) What should i do? Shall i tag it for speedy deletion?

Thanks in advance.

Nishadhi (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Found. Hon. John Penry Lewis [9] (1854 to 1923)[10] see under author. Is it OK to keep the image? Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
In order for an image to be hosted on Commons it has to be in the public domain in it's source country (Sri Lanka) and in the U.S. This image is fine. It's PD in Sri Lanka, which has a copyright term of life of the author + 70 years. It's PD in the U.S. because it was first published outside the United States before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities and it was in the public domain in Sri Lanka on January 1, 1996 (the date of URAA restoration for Sri Lanka). I've updated the license tags on the image accordingly. —RP88 12:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Nishadhi (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"Copyrighted free use" tag

I stumbled a bit of problem with the images tagged with such a license. For example, there could be several problems with that
1) If everything is OK and permission is given to everyone willing to use - permission may be withdrawn by the copyright holder at any time, including for those ALREADY using the files in question.
2) The permission may in fact not cover commercial use, or modification (only copying, republishing and public display of the work in question). Even worse scenario may include permission asked for Wikipedia and given only for Wikipedia - that's on the countrary to any free license (including recently disputed GFDL license) or public domain dedication
So I'm inclined to propose the following
1) Disallow any further downloads to Commons under

Green copyright.svg The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification.

Dialog-warning.svg Please check the source to verify that this is correct. In particular, note that publication on the Internet, like publication by any other means, does not in itself imply permission to redistribute. Files without valid permission should be tagged with {{subst:npd}}.

Usage notes:
• If the work requires attribution, use {{Attribution}} instead
• If this is your own work, please use {{Cc-zero}} instead

or

© The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.

templates (the files already here may be kept, I think if the checks on permission status pass)

2) Looking at several permission letters under such terms - and their wording. For example - the one's here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nemo5576/MON. Does anyone have the request for permission - as this could easily be the case, that permission was asked (and given) only for Wikipedia's projects. I've did the same mistake when beginnig work with Commons, with OTRS's not passing and files get deleted. --RussianTrooper (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Room at Masonic Hall Bury St Edmunds Suffolk England.jpg

The website which this file was taken from claims copyright here - http://www.burypastandpresent.org.uk/apply-to-use-images.shtml. The image itself dates from 1910. Where do we stand? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's very common for the possessor of an image to claim a copyright that no longer exists, owing to the age of the image. This would be a lot clearer if we knew publication dates for the image (how is it dated to 1910? Was this a known publication?) or else the photographer's death date (which would need to be pre-1926). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
From the history of the collection, if this were a deletion request, I would highlight that neither the donor's estate (Michael Jarman), nor the current possessor (Bury St Edmunds Past and Present Society) have any verifiable claim of copyright over the photograph negatives nor any reproduction of them. As stated in the history, the Spantons were commercial photographers with the business changing hands in 1901. This photograph is likely to have been taken around 1900 (rather than 1910) by William Silas Spanton who's date of death can be verified as 1930. Under the 70 year rule, no retrospective claim of copyright has any credibility. -- (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, especially for the extra information on the date. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
In that case, delete, per COM:URAA. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
LOL. There is no evidence of retrospective claim of copyright before 1996 (such as evidence of publication). Raise a DR if you believe that applies and want to explain the ins and outs, but the facts appear otherwise. -- (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Commons policy is to bulk-delete UK-PD images, even if they're in-use or could meet WP:NFCC. Do you claim that this would somehow not be in UK copyright up to 1996? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
All works published before 1923 are out of copyright in the US, the URAA notwithstanding.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Andy, I do a lot of volunteer work here on Commons and around 100,000 uploaded photos of mine relate to the UK, many of a historic context. If there is a commons policy to bulk delete UK public domain images like this one, then I am not aware of it. In the UK, this photograph is public domain, that seems a highly convincing rationale to keep it as part of this projects remit to preserve and provide free access to educational media. If you disagree, please do create a DR, as digging through a hypothetical multi-point URAA based argument and countering this with tangible international copyright case law would be hard work, and I certainly would not want to do it more than once. Thanks -- (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be worth updating the file with the additional information, btw - it still lists the author as unknown etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

UK-PD is no reason to delete (yet!), but nor is it a protection against being deleted. If it didn't enter the UK PD before '96, then they are being deleted under URAA. A US publication pre-1923 would be another reason to keep it, but as noted above, there's no evidence for such a publication. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I still don't know of any consensus to delete proven UK PD works that might have became PD after 1996, for which there is no evidence of first publication with an associated claim of copyright in 1996 or earlier, and for which there is no current copyright holder, in this case as the life+70 years copyright term has passed under standard UK copyright law. Could you provide a link to an existing consensus that provides that guideline? -- (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
So is your claim that this was unpublished before 1996? Or is it that it was published in the US before 1923?
In the UK this is PD from 2000, I think we both agree. So the website is making an unsupportable claim re UK use.
Now in the US, it would either have to show that it had an early US copyright that has now expired (I see no evidence for this) or that it was PD-UK by 1996 (which I think is 4 years early).
Commons is bulk-deleting UK-PD resources from the '20s and '30s (many of them my uploads) on the grounds of URAA. Some of these are even of datable subjects from 1924 and 1925, because the one source used for the scans uploaded here was a 1928 publication. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I have explained previously that this photo was taken in 1901 or earlier, and there is nobody to forward a potential claim of copyright. If you want to layout a case that sets a precedent for this fringe and hypothetical interpretation of URAA, please create a DR rather than making this thread any longer. I can't see the point of arguing this more than once. -- (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
There are two questions here:
a) Was it published anywhere in the world prior to 1923 and b) what evidence of publication would we require? I do not know about England, but in that era US commercial photographers commonly sold individual prints. I would take a photographer's stamp or mark on a print as evidence of publication not long after the photograph was made. If as it seems from the website, the original is a glass-plate negative the situation is less clear and more history would be very useful. Dankarl (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Öresund Bridge

Please, please help. I have spent many hours trying to find out whether I am allowed to use a fine photograph by Marcus Bengtsson of Oresund Bridge that appears on Wikipedia. I should like to use this photo as a front cover for a book I have just completed. The title of my book is The Journey to Lund. My book uses in part the script of Ingmar Bergman's film Wild Strawberries. I'd like to add to the photo the title of the book, and my name. I have read the comments on the license at least twenty times, and I am still unable to understand whether I am allowed to use this photo as a book cover. I should like to address this message directly to Mr Bengtsson, but I am unable to find his email address. That way I should also be able to express my esteem of his photo. Please, please help somone out there.

Eric Sotto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.124.72 (talk • contribs)

Email removed and text formatted. -- (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you give a link to the specific photo? There are several in use at Øresund Bridge. -- (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Eric, I think you must mean File:Öresund bridge.JPG. The uploader is the photographer, so you can try writing on his talk page which you can find at User talk:Marcusroos, though his last edit on this project was more than a month ago. The only requirement on this photo is for attribution, so long as you give credit in your book to "Marcus Bengtsson" for being the photographer and include that this is on a CC-BY-SA license (so any further re-use uses the same licence), then you are legally compliant. Explain this to your publisher as they are used to taking care of suitable credits. It would be nice for you to include a link to Commons as a source too, but legally you don't have to. :-) -- (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Some photographs on the Wikipedias are freely reusable, others are not. Not much can be answered without knowing which file. In principle, if the file has a valid free license, it can be reused according to the terms of its specific license. A book cover is as good a use as any other. From the images hosted here on Commons, if the file is File:Öresund bridge.JPG, then the photographer offers a choice of four free licenses. You choose one. For example, if you choose to use the license CC-by-sa 3.0, you should read the text of that license. Mention all the required informations in your book in a place where that sort of cover image credits are usually placed according with good publishing practice. You can contact the photographer of this file on his user talk page linked in the answer above. If you use a free license properly, it not necessary to contact him, but it can be a good idea to do so and confirm with him the best wording and placement for the credit. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

JacksonvilleUSeal.png

I don't know much about licensing issues and such, but File:JacksonvilleUSeal.png was added to a Simple Wikipedia article, and I'm not sure about the licensing on it. Mathew105601 (talk · contribs) has it labeled as consisting of only geometric shapes, therefore, it doesn't meet threshold of creativity and is public domain. Look at the logo, it seems like it's more than just "geometric" shapes. Can someone with more knowledge take a look? Some of his other contributions should be looked at, too, if this is an issue including File:JUlogo.png, File:Jta icon skyway.jpg, and File:UNF_logo.png. Thanks for the help, Either way (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly File:JacksonvilleUSeal.png is not licensed correctly, I also have my doubts about the licence on File:Jta icon skyway.jpg and File:UNF_logo.png. On the other hand File:JUlogo.png is IMO licensed correctly. Will see what others say, but absent anything major they should be deleted and will start a DR if know-one else does. LGA talkedits 05:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:IPB logo svg.svg

I have concerns about this being in the public domain, based solely on the uploader (User:Updem11) claiming it is his/her work. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It is based on File:IPB-logo.gif, which claims to be public domain. No author is given and the source is given as the IPB website. I couldn't find any copyright information on the website, apart from "(c) 2012 International Peace Bureau" in the footer. As the logo appears eligible for copyright, being more than text and simple geometric shapes, both should probably be deleted. --rimshottalk 10:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:UNFPA logo.svg

I have vectorized the UNFPA logo, which is mainly a bunch of circles and some text (so {{PD-textlogo}} and the UN-logo (extracted from File:Flag of the United Nations.svg, which have had a bit of a rough time in various ways (see File talk:Flag of the United Nations.svg, Commons talk:Licensing/Archive_5#Flag_of_the_United_Nations, Template talk:PD-UN and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of the United Nations.png). On EnWiki the same logo (but as png) is licensed as Fair Use, but I do believe that this do qualify for a {{PD-UN}}+{{PD-textlogo}}-licensing, which means it may be used on Commons, which mean it may be deleted on EnWiki. Any input would be much appreciated :) --heb [T C E] 11:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

False US Gov restrictions

In reviewing some images in Category:PD files for review I notice that 4 images emanating from the White House have restrictions in the metadata. They state that: This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal use only. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated or broadcast, without the written permission of the White House Photo Office. This photograph may not be used in any commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. This non-commercial non-derivative restriction appear to be copyfraud because all US government images produced while in their employment are in the public domain. I was going to remove the PD files for review category but provide a note stating that the restriction in the metadata was false. However, before doing so I would like to hear some other views.

Ww2censor (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Aaaah! Not that topic again! Sorry. Face-smile.svg Maybe we should have a FAQ entry about it or something to which we could link when people bring it up. In short, it's not false but it's not meant to be an exhaustive legal treatise either. If it is verified that a photo meets the conditions of PD-USGov works (the photographer is a U.S. government employee in the performance of his/her duties), it meets the requirements of Commons about the copyright status in the U.S., without prejudice to valid restrictions (copyrights outside the U.S., non-copyright restrictions, copyrights generated otherwise than through USgov employment, etc.). Such photos published on the White House flickr account link to the page www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml, which is a rather good summary of the situation, I think. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
So why do you think an experienced 7-year editor like User:UCinternational bother to tag them for PD review several months after uploading them? They would not be on my radar. Ww2censor (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing he wanted to be reassured that he had not made a mistake, because he may not have been certain of the employment status of the photographer, or because the boilerplate notice understandably puzzled him, like it puzzles everybody, as evidenced by the frequency of the comments about it (on the help desk, village pump, in deletion requests, etc.). That's why I believe it might be useful to have a note somewhere explaining what seems to be the consensus on Commons about it, if we can think of a relevant page where interested users could be expected to find it easily. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
How about at the top of Category:Photographs by Lawrence Jackson, giving his start date as White House Photographer? Dankarl (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Władysław Strzemiński.jpg

This image is clearly a derivative work of this photo of 1932 from the Polish National archives. So I assume then that the original photo is in PD as well? Template:PD-Polish is a bit too complex to me to say for sure. --NeoLexx (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear when the photo was first published. Ruslik (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Acme Newspictures

Context: One of the photographs originally published by Acme Newspictures in the 1940s was recently nominated for deletion. Commons has some photos credited to Acme Newspictures from circa 1930-1950. Many more are widely reproduced on the internet. On Commons, they are variously tagged. At least one uploader clearly states that the photo he uploaded was researched and that no copyright renewal was found. Some other uploaders assume that the photos are in the public domain but they do not say that they have personally researched them. I wonder if any conclusion exists about the status of those photos in general or if each one must be researched individually.

The following was the notice written on the back of a print of a photograph distributed circa 1938, apparently to its subscribing newspapers, by the Acme Newspictures agency:

Photo by Acme Newspictures, Inc. 
Chicago Bureau 
Tribune Tower, Chicago, Ill. 
PLEASE CREDIT "ACME" 
This picture is sold to you for your publication 
only and must not be loaned, syndicated or 
used for advertising purposes without written 
permission from us.
  • What conclusion, if any, can be drawn about the copyright status of the photograph with that notice? Can it be safely considered that it was published without a copyright notice? Could it be on Commons?

More generally:

  • Has anyone ever seen, or heard of, any photo distributed by Acme Newspictures that had a valid copyright notice? (Original publication notices on photos distributed by Acme Newspictures, not registrations and not recent notices of the Corbis collection.)
  • Has anyone ever seen or heard that any copyright renewal has ever existed on any photo distributed and/or registered by Acme Newspictures? (The Library of Congress has researched and not found any renewal for the few registered Acme photos in its collection, but has any renewal at all for any Acme photo ever been found by anybody?)

-- Asclepias (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

From "Journalism: A Guide to the Reference Literature" by Jo A. Cates (page 238) [11]. "Acme Newspictures, 1923-1960" was acquired by the Bettmann Archive then Corbis.
The Bettmann Archive was purchased by Corbis, a photo agency founded by Bill Gates, and in 1997, according to its Web site, "spent five years selecting images of maximum historical value and saleability for digitization. More than 1.3 million images (26 percent of the collection) have been edited and 225,000 have been digitized." Bettmann Newsphotos, which was part of the Bettmann Archive, offered the photographic collection of United Press International from 1907 to the present; International News Photos, 1912-1958; Acme Newspictures, 1923-1960; Pacific and Atlantic Photos, 1925-1930; and Reuters from 1985 to the present. In addition, the Bettmann Archive contained the Underwood and Underwood Collection of feature and news photography from 1880-1955 and the New York Daily Mirror collection from 1947-1961.
In 2002, the Archive was "moved to a state-of-the-art, sub-zero film preservation facility in western Pennsylvania" or as Dirck Halstead put it in an issue of the Digital Journalist, Corbis "was preparing to move the entire Bettmann Archive to a cave in western Pennsylvania." He continues, "The UPI files, alone, comprise millions of photographs taken by photographers working for the United Press, the International News Service, and Acme Newspictures. The collection is one of the most extensive in the world." Researchers interested in these images should contact Corbis to determine if they are still available. As of 2004, Corbis offered 70 million images.
From other sources : Kraus-Thomson acquired the Bettmann Archive in 1981, followed by the United Press International collection (United Press International, International News Photos, Acme Newspictures and Pacific & Atlantic photos) in 1984. Corbis acquired the Bettmann Archive and UPI collection in 1995. Acme and other agencies did not give photographers a named credit on their photos. This made it difficult for heirs to claim a copyright. This may have also made it difficult for the acquiring companies to claim or renew any copyright.:: -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I've done renewal searches for photos attributed to Acme Newspictures for an organization unrelated to the Wikipedia projects. Something to keep in mind when looking for renewals is Acme's successor agencies, which may have renewed rights they acquired when they purchased earlier institutions. In the case of Acme Newspictures, it was sold to United Press (UP Photo Service) in January 1952. UP Photo Service became United Press International (UPI) in 1954. UPI's photo archive was sold to the Bettmann Archive in 1984, and the Bettmann Archive was sold to Corbis in 1996. With regards to photos credited to Acme Newspictures from circa 1930-1950, you'll want to look for renewals by the photographer, Acme Newspictures, United Press / UP, and United Press International / UPI. For what it is worth, I've never seen a copyright renewal record under the Acme Newspictures name. —RP88 20:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about a template.

Recently I removed a rename template from a number of symbols (the rename was complete), and noticed a rather odd license template: Template:JG Aksara Jawa. I went to the website listed, which doesn't have any proper licensing section, it has sentences that elude to a free license, but nothing specific. There is nothing about licensing anywhere at the website ( [12] ) Is this an acceptable license or not? My feeling is that it isn't sufficiently clear to be an acceptable license, but I would like input from others. Liamdavies (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no way that "I own the copyright. In reality, if you take them an use them for whatever purpose you wish, there isn't much I can do to stop you." is an acceptable attribution license, as there is no explicit authorization for redistribution, derivative works, and commercial use. I checked archive.org and that copyright claim has been on the site in question (back when it was hosted by geocities) as far back as 2001. In my opinion the Template:JG Aksara Jawa license template is not valid and should probably be changed to redirect to {{No license since}}. —RP88 14:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No one's had any more thoughts on this? I may request deletion/redirection as suggested by RP88 in a week or so if I hear nothing more. Liamdavies (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

De minimis or not?

Before I do anything with this, thought I'd ask. If it's OK, it would be a good historical photo, since this was the first time the Academy Awards were televised. Thanks, We hope (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The copyrighted Oscar statue shown in the center photograph is probably de minimis. However, each of the 11 photographs shown, including the one in the center, could have a copyright. In order to keep it here, someone would have to do the necessary research to determine their status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Will see what turns up re: those pictured. Thanks! We hope (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Poster for --Twilight Saga-Breaking Dawn-- 2013-10-15 20-17.jpg

I'm certain that File:Poster for --Twilight Saga-Breaking Dawn-- 2013-10-15 20-17.jpg, being movie publicity artwork, is not {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} and is in fact a copyright violation. But how should I prove that, and having done so, what is the next step? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 20:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that the copyright owner would have released the poster in question under a free licence, so this is one of those cases where I would regard OTRS verification as essential before the image is allowed in the Commons. On balance, the poster is more likely than not to be a copyright violation, so I have nominated it for speedy deletion as such. If the uploader in fact has permission from the copyright owner, he or she can send it to OTRS and ask for the image to be undeleted. Somehow, I doubt that is going to happen. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the uploader's other uploads all appear to be copyright violations, and have been tagged as such. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 20:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The file's been speedily deleted, as you can see. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Permission granted

prefix:Commons:Upload help/Archive

I got a permission granted by email by the editors of an open access journal to upload one of the figures of an article, but don't know which copyright use to upload.

Journal is Nuytsia

Article is:

Drosera paradoxa (Droseraceae), a new species from northern Australia by LOWRIE, ALLEN, Nuytsia 11 (3): 347–351 (1997)

Can someone help me with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuilhemAD (talk • contribs)

It depends on what sort of permission the editors gave you. Did they release the figure into the public domain (in which case, use {{cc-zero}} or {{PD-author}})? If not, it is better if you ask the editors to specifically choose a licence such as cc-zero, {{cc-by-3.0}} or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Then make sure that you forward the e-mail correspondence to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org. For more information on this procedure, see "Commons:OTRS". — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Séjourné.jpg deleted though licence e-mail sent

Hello, I'd be grateful for some information about a file I uploaded, and which has been deleted by another user. As it's the first time I upload something to the Wikimedia Commons, I'm not sure why it is happening and what should I do next. I admit that it was a bit surprising to me to see the image disappear even though I took special care to obtain and send the author's permission to the Wiki Commons. The upload procedure was a bit complicated because as I couldn't find an appropriate upload form matching my case (I'm not the author, nor did I find it on the web, but I know the photographer, Gregory Massat, who sent the photo to me), I asked the author of the image, according to Wiki Commons regulations, to send an e-mail with his authorisation and his choice of licence to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org. And I do have a confirmation that it has been sent in the end of August. I was told that due to a huge amount of uploads waiting to be treate by Commons Permissions, it might take a long time for my imag to be approved. That's why I was even more astonished to see someone delete it without even checking anything at all... My image was legal, and author's permission has been sent. What can I do now? I can't even find my impage upload anymore... :(

Thank you a lot for your help, --Escrivendi (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess you can post a message at "Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard". Hopefully if you provide them with your e-mail address or other identifying information they can find out what happened. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

URAA for PD Japan templates

{{PD-Japan-organization}} and {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} need to be updated to reflect Commons:URAA. Could anyone please help with this? Is there an internationalized template to insert a note like "You must also include a United_States|United States public domain tag ..." ? I was tempted to copy-and-paste the note used in {{PD-old}}, but realized that would waste translators' time. --whym (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} applies, then it means that the photo entered the public domain before the law was changed on 1 January 1971, so URAA doesn't apply. Commons:Subsisting copyright could potentially apply in a few rare cases. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems correct. The current template could be improved though by incorporating explicit statement about the how it (un)relates to US copyright. --whym (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
How about {{PD-Japan-organization}}? --whym (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
{{PD-Japan-organization}} is affected by URAA. Unless I have overlooked anything, it requires publication before 1946, or creation before 1946 if not published before 1996. However, if a Japanese work is in the public domain in Japan because the term for unpublished works has expired, then it additionally needs to satisfy {{PD-US-unpublished}} (same rule for unpublished works from any country).
{{PD-Japan-audio}} is tricky. Sound recordings created before 15 February 1972 aren't protected at federal level in USA but at state level (see COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings). It is my understanding that different states have different laws and that URAA possibly is relevant in some states but not necessarily in all states. {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}} and {{PD-1996}} are not guaranteed to work for sound recordings made before that date. Japanese sound recordings created on 15 February or 1972 follow federal law and all of them are copyrighted in USA due to URAA.
{{PD-Japan-film}} is tricky due to the partial application of the old copyright law. See the court ruling. Also note that the English version of the film template differs from the Japanese version. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, Stefan, for your insights (and sorry for being late on this reply). I have gone ahead to modify {{PD-Japan-organization}} - does it look good? I think I can add a similar note on URAA to {{PD-Japan}}. I'm not sure what we should do with the other templates for trickier cases. whym (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Currency (banknotes and coins) of Greece uploaded to Commons

In an older discussion on Money of Greece it was decided that: "Per Commons:Currency#Greece Currency (banknotes and coins) cannot be uploaded to Commons. The copyright is held by the designer under Greek law (Law 2121/1993, as in force)." However, in Greek Wikipedia, on Copyrights, Law 2121/1993 is described as a general Law on Copyrights, not specifically on Greek coins and banknotes.

The website of "The Bank of Greece" on Intellectual and industrial property rights states that: "users of this website may use information available on this website, provided that such information is reproduced accurately and the Bank of Greece is cited as the source". I guess this includes Greek coins and banknotes. It seems that banknotes and coins of Greece can be freely uploaded anywhere on the Web.

So why is it NOT OK to upload and use the image of the Greek drachmae in Wikimedia Commons? --Odysses (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so keep that in mind with regards to my reply. I'm not sure if the Bank of Greece's website's TOS is necessarily the correct place to be looking for a statement regarding copyright as it applies to Greek currency. However, if we, for the sake of argument, accept that it is, then you should read it more carefully, as the terms in the website TOS do not constitute a free license. Read the next sentence after the one you quote, together they are "Subject to the exceptions below, users of this website may use information available on this website, provided that such information is reproduced accurately and the Bank of Greece is cited as the source. Any sale and/or modification of the information by the user without the prior written consent of the Bank of Greece is prohibited." The requirements in the later sentence do not satisfy Commons:Licensing, as they constitute a non-free restriction on the creation of derivative works as well as commercial use. —RP88 19:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't suppose that "uploading" a coin photo at Commons will imply "sale and/or modification of the information" in any way, but thanks all the same. I'm not familiar with legal aspects either, so I hope to hear the opinion of an admin. --Odysses (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
No, uploading a coin photo to Commons, wouldn't, per se, violate a "sale and/or modification of the information" restriction, neither would using such an image on of one the encyclopedic sister projects. However, Commons aims to be more that just a repository of images that are "free", images are only permitted on Commons if they can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose (including commercial uses). Commons:Licensing has a good overview. Some of the local wikis have more permissive image policies than Commons. —RP88 00:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, I don't see which part of your question would require administrative privileges to answer. Commons:Village pump/Copyright would be a more appropriate forum for this matter. LX (talk, contribs) 06:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
So why are drachmas not permitted on Commons compared to, for example copyrighted EU Money? Can EU Money be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose (including commercial uses) wheras drachmas cannot? --Odysses (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Background information for Commons:Currency#Greece is at Commons talk:Currency/Archive 1#Greece. (The talk page archive had a non-standard name, so this edit made the link disappear from the talk page, making the information rather hard to find.) LX (talk, contribs) 20:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but this appears to be the routine response of an employee of the Bank of Greece. We'd better rely on the official property rights as stated by the "Bank of Greece" (see above). --Odysses (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
However, neither of the two replies seems to oppose the use/upload of Greek coins and banknotes to Commons. They do reserve the right of "the designer", which in my view sounds reasonable and means that none else can claim to be the "designer", only the uploader of a coin image. --Odysses (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

--- from COM:AN --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

CERN releases photos under a Creative Commons licence

There are some recent news regarding CERN licensing of photos. According to this page they have started licensing some of their material under {{CC-BY-SA}}. We may continue this discussion on this page: Commons_talk:Licensing#CERN_releases_photos_under_a_Creative_Commons_licence SV1XV (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Guide to nominating images for deletion

Can someone direct me to Commons equivalent of Wikipedia AFD? Anyway, this time I have three problematic images to report: File:Aschimscheiner.jpg - GFDL "from en wiki"; File:Tadeusz Mazowiecki 80th birthday.jpg and File:Marcin Swiecicki.jpg - both dubious "own work". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Piotrus, is this what you are looking for? Lotje (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Or maybe How to list deletion requests. Ww2censor (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove my copyrighted photos!

Hi, Can you remove my copyrighted photo from there? ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Charon_band_cropped.jpg ) -and all of other languages as well. I have removed my license years and photo from that account, years ago!

Or should I contact my lawer? (I didn't find any other contact form for you here then this wall.)

And please remove every other photos that I have shared in past via my flickr account! Because that license is expired, and account removed years ago..

Eetu Aleksi Laankoski http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Old_Rauma_3.jpg -remove photos like these as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.63.235 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 18 October 2013‎ (UTC)

The Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license that you chose to publish your photos under does not expire. From https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode, section 7(b):

Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated [upon any breach of the licensing terms].

Emphasis mine. Cheers, LX (talk, contribs) 16:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Parliament of New South Wales, Australia copyright question.

Am I allowed to upload a picture of a state representative of New South Wales to Wikimedia Commons under these terms (of NSW Parliament website)?

Copyright Notice, Conditions of Use and Disclaimer

The picture in question does not have a original author listed near it.

Thanks, Camerontregan (talk)

Unfortunately the terms on that page (in particular "You may only use our material for personal, non-commercial purposes") are not compatible with Commons. Commons requires that images be usable by anyone, anytime, for any purpose, including commercial purposes. See Commons:Licensing for details. —RP88 05:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-Ukraine}} clarification (incl. URAA effect)

Hi, I have opened a request on {{PD-Ukraine}} clarification. This is the result of analysis of several Ukrainian laws, and particularly of the conditions of Ukraine joining the Berne Convention (which has an impact on URAA effect on Ukrainian works). I invite you to comment on this issue here: Template talk:PD-Ukraine#Request for clarification. Thanks — NickK (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Coins of Ukraine

I don't think that coins qualify as public domain works in Ukraine. Article 10 [13] mentions only banknotes. What do you think? --Eleassar (t/p) 10:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A few coins may count as "state symbols", for example File:Coin of Ukraine 1-2-5 r.jpg (cf. File:Lesser Coat of Arms of Ukraine.svg).
Point d in {{PD-UA-exempt}} includes postage stamps according to the Commons template. Maybe also coins are included here? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Postage stamps are included because they are defined as "state signs" in the Law of Ukraine On Postal Service. Does the entire design of File:Coin of Ukraine 1-2-5 r.jpg count as a state symbol - it differs from the coat of arms image? --Eleassar (t/p) 10:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The year is presumably below the threshold of originality. For the rest of the stuff, I don't really know. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The Ukrainian original does not mention banknotes (Ukrainian: банкноти) but mentions monetary units (Ukrainian: грошові знаки). The latter definition is wider and does not limit only to banknotes: according to the website of the National Bank of Ukraine Ukraine has two types of monetary units: banknotes and coins — NickK (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
As far as I have verified, this is correct. Thanks for having clarified this. If no one disagrees, I'll correct the description at Template:PD-UA-exempt. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Evidently even though these coins are in the public domain in Ukraine, they're still copyrighted in the United States. Per [14], only edicts of government are copyright free, and coins are not included. As they were first published outside the United States and after 1 March 1989, they are copyrighted "70 years after the death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication". The same applies to banknotes. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a very weird conclusion and needs wider discussion, as its consequences are far beyond Ukrainian coins. There is a huge number of countries who consider government works other than edicts public domain, most notably, this will concern the whole pages Commons:Currency, Commons:Stamps/Public domain, Commons:Coats of arms and some others. If what you are saying is true (although I have serious doubts that it is the case), it will mean that whole classes of works that are not copyrighted by definition in source countries (currency, stamps, coats of arms and flags etc.) but do not receive such excemption in USA, will have to be deleted from Commons. As this will concern hundreds of thousands of images, I do invite you to open a wider discussion on this — NickK (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. However, it is in line with [15] (Dreier, Thomas. Overview of Legal Aspects in the European Union. Pp. 21–23) and needs to be disproven. I'm thinking of creating an RFC. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

copyright ineligible

Hi! I would want to know if the copyright ineligible status would apply for the logo of Frente de la Juventud (see the triangle within that black circle forming a F + J here [16]), which was a far-right terrorist organization in Spain during the Spanish transition to democracy period, as it is a extremely simple geometric shape, and in that case if the {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-shape}} license tags would be appropiate for the upload of a new vectorial file. Thanks in advance.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It is quite probable but it is not so clear-cut. Ruslik (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Martabmts

Are those free files? --77.8.165.69 11:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that two of them are copyright violations. The third one is a duplicate of another image on Commons, but the uploader forgot to mention this. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Evoor Damodaran Nair.JPG

File:Evoor Damodaran Nair.JPG states (admits?) "This was scanned from an old portrait" "Original portrail(sic) was taken at an unknown studio. It was scanned by me."
How is this not a copyvio? Arjayay (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

All photos by this uploader have been nominated for deletion on Commons and English Wikipedia. According to the EXIF, some of the photos were taken using a camera which was first sold about seven years after the man died, so there are more suspicious things about the photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your rapid response Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Retouched non-copyrighted works between 1923-1977

Over at the Star Trek project on En-Wiki, we've just found out that there may be a plethora of potential images that may be free use as they're non-copyrighted. Now we knew that some of the original publicity shots weren't copyrighted by NBC on original release. We've already got a handful of images on Commons already due to the diligence of a uploader back in 2011 when he found a load of publicity packets on eBay.

Now it seems that a new book called These Are the Voyages has used a number of behind the scenes shots from the first season of The Original Series, which caused a fuss with this website as it restores images from Star Trek. The editors of the book have argued that the originals weren't copyrighted and they re-touched the images themselves (resulting in similar results to the website). Now, a two-fold question: What is the copyright status of re-touched images that themselves were not copyrighted? And secondly, what information do we need to prove that the behind the scenes images actually are not copyrighted? I mean, if we couldn't use the re-touched, could we simply get copies of the originals and retouch them ourselves - but what would we need to show they weren't in copyright?

Sorry about the queries - I just wanted to get the copyright issue straight in my head before deciding on a course of action. Because ideally I'd like to get the images on Commons if I could. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In general, retouching a work is absolutely copyrightable as long as the changes rise above the threshold of originality; compare with Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, which says that we usually ignore any claimed copyrights on scanned images as long as the scanned image isn't retouched in a creative way. Admittedly, this is difficult to police or even figure out for most images, so you may find lots of examples on Commons which violate this policy, and which no one has yet found. Also admittedly, this gives weasel room for scanners to retouch anything they upload and thus claim a copyright: however, we don't write the laws or set precedent, we just try to follow them (with a bit of wiggle room where the law is unclear).
So, as a general rule: ✓OK grabbing the original work and retouching it ourselves, X mark.svg Not OK grabbing someone else's retouching.
However, you also might want to make sure you don't run afoul of the fan art principle, which says that an image depicting a creative idea (namely Star Trek) is copyrightable simply for depicting the idea. This is not simply overzealousness on the part of Commons users either: copyright law and court precedent is very clear on this issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Ideas are not copyrightable, even those that are creative. Only expressions of ideas can be subject of copyright protection. Ruslik (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
OK cool, that makes it an easier line to follow than I could have hoped for. :) Miyagawa (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Ron Gant 1965.jpg

Hi. This is the first one from Flickr that I've found quite like this. There are so many issues that I'm not quite sure how to proceed, so I thought I'd ask here.

  1. The image was uploaded by User:Delaywaves (no problem with that), but it is a cropped image of the original from Flickr (given as the source of the image). This caused FlicreviewR to fail the automatic validation of the license (understandable since it's not the same image). The image is licensed under CC-BY on Flickr, so it is permissible to edit the image, including cropping out the airman.
  2. Who is the "author" of this image? What is the correct "source"? Is it Delaywaves who did the photo manipulation? Is it DVIDSHUB, the Flickr account used to upload the photo to Flickr? Is it DVIDS (the Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System)? Or is it the actual photographer, Jessica Blanton?
  3. Which template should be used to identify the copyright and license? {{PD-US}} seems appropriate given the copyright information given at DVIDS. However, it was released on Flickr under CC-BY-2.0, which is the same license it is listed under by Delaywaves. I am not sure if Flickr even has a PD-US style of license, so CC-BY may be the most permissive license DVIDSHUB could select, even though they wanted to release it under PD.
  4. Finally, FlickreviewR noticed the discrepancy in the date of the photo's title (1965 vs. 2012). That should be fixed, but I don't have moving rights (yet; I've applied). I can list it under requested moves, but I'd like to get the other issues fixed first, especially if replacing the existing image with the original one and then uploading a separate cropped version might not be a better option overall.

Thanks for your input! Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 04:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The author of the image (cropped or not cropped) is Jessica Blanton—the actual photographer. The licence should be {{CC-BY-2.0}} as on Flickr. The image has been moved. Ruslik (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
  • Question 2.1: "Who is the "author" of this image? "
Comment: Jessica Blanton. The complete Exif data on flickr states: "Creator: Jessica Blanton" and "Artist: Jessica Blanton". (In the modified Exif data on Commons, that is modified to "Author: Jessica Blanton"). The legislations of most countries, including the United States, define "author", basically, as the person who created the work. As a general rule, one can say that the photographer is the creator of a photograph, and thus its author. There can be exceptions and subtleties in some cases and in some countries, but the general rule can be applied to the image examined here.
  • Q. 2.2: "What is the correct "source"? "
C.: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28650594@N03/7295408370. The source is the place from where the image was copied to be uploaded to Commons, allowing verification of its status if necessary. When that source itself is a copy and/or does not supply the necessary informations, additional information can be or should be supplied about the origin of the image and about the source of the source.
  • Q. 2.3: "Is it [the Commons user] who did the photo manipulation? "
C.: No. The Commons user is neither the source nor the author per the general understanding on Commons and per the legislations of most countries, including the United States. The action of a simple cropping of an image is generally not considered as the addition of creative content generating a distinct copyright. On Commons, the fact that an image was modified (creatively or not creatively) should normally be mentioned in the "Retouched picture" template or in the description of the image. When the modification is not creative, the modificator normally would not claim authorship. However, in a few countries with unusual legislations, there may exist some possibility that some non-creative work and even identical copying might allow a copyright claim by the copier on the copy in those countries, in addition to (but not in replacement of) the rights of the author of the original work. Some Commons users claim authorship on non-creative croppings. Sometimes, it's a misunderstanding about the proper manner of mentioning that the image has been non-creatively modified. But if it is a deliberate claim of authorship on the copy, although it may not be good practice on Commons, it is not directly forbidden, as far as I can tell, as long as that additional claim does not displace the credit to the creator and author of the original work. If the copier claims sole authorship on the work without crediting the actual author, that would be plagiarism, violation of the author's moral rights and, where applicable, violation of the copyright of the copyright owner. If the copier deliberately added a claim, it can be left, for what it's worth, but the main credit to the author of the original work should remain present and prominent.
  • Q. 2.4: "Is it [...] the Flickr account [...]? "
C.: The flickr account's page for the full image is the source (cf. 2.2) but in the present case the flickr account is not the author (cf. 2.1) and it does not claim authorship. In the Exif data on flickr and through a link to the dvidshub.net image page, the flickr account identifies the creator as being the photographer.
  • Q. 2.5: "Or is it the actual photographer[...]? "
C.: The photographer is not the source (cf. 2.2) but she is the author (cf. 2.1 with the small caveat mentioned at 2.3). IMO, although this was not part of the question, a good wording for the attribution would be something in the style of "Jessica Blanton, U.S. Army photographer". It credits the author, it also meets the request (from the Exif data) to credit the U.S. Army and it tells the connection between the two.
  • Q. 3: "Which template should be used [on Commons]? "
C.: The template(s) used on Commons must tell adequately the actual status of the work, as accurately and as clearly as can be determined from all available informations. Indeed, flickr has only a very limited set of license tags available and, IMO, it is almost certain that, as you say, "CC-BY may be the most permissive license DVIDSHUB could select, even though they wanted to release it under PD". The Exif data published with this image on flickr (linked above at 2.1) clearly states the public domain nature of this image. It even repeats it three times: "Copyright: Public Domain", "Copyright Notice: Public Domain" and "Rights: Public Domain" (the Commons version of the Exif has a single mention: "Copyright holder: Public Domain"). It also states the reason for that status in the U.S.: "Authors Position: Army photographer". The image page on flickr also links to the image page on dvidshub.net, which also has an explicit statement of public domain. It is thus clear without any doubt that this work is a USGov work and thus public domain in the United States. In the U.S., this fact takes precedence over any incompatible license tag. There is no uncertainty and no license conflict about this image in the U.S. In the U.S., it is PD-USGov and the CC tag is inapplicable. The template "PD-US" is okay, but the template "PD-USGov-Military-Army" is more specific, although its text lacks the precision "in the United States", which is present on the former. If you use "PD-US", some user at some point may take the initiative to replace it with PD-USGov-Military-Army anyway, so you might save that hypothetical user an edit and just use the latter template from the start. The only question may be about the status of this image outside the U.S. On this question, there could be, in theory, two possible interpretations. The first interpretation is to take the "Public domain" notices of the Exif data as a declaration of release of the image to the public domain outside the U.S., in line with your idea that "they wanted to release it under PD". The second interpretation is to take the "public domain" notices as a mere statement of fact of the status of the image in the U.S. and to take the CC-by tag as indicative of a deliberate intention of the U.S. Army to claim a copyright outside the U.S. on this image and to license this image under CC-by outside the U.S. Thus, if we want to be more cautious than less on Commons, we can subdivise the licensing section in two subsections: "In the U.S.: PD-USGov-Military-Army. Outside the U.S.: CC-by-2.0.". Reusers outside the U.S. can follow the links and sort out the situation for themselves.
-- Asclepias (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow! That is probably the most complete, informative, and helpful personal response to a general question that I've ever received on any wiki project. Thank you, Asclepias, for taking the considerable time to research even beyond what I did, for analyzing all of these different details, and then carefully explaining everything in that manner. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into helping me to better understand all these various nuances of this less-than-clear situation.
If I may be so bold as to ask a few more questions on the topic... This photo was released on at least two sites, and it was the Flickr site (apparently) that was the source of the file uploaded to Commons (by way of a Commons user's computer that cropped the image prior to uploading). It could have just as easily been sourced from the DVIDS Website, and it seems that the Flickr account in this case is not much different from the Commons user's intermediary computer. It's just an intermediary server/service that distributed the original photo from the DVIDS site. Why would it, or would it not, be more or less appropriate to list Flickr as the source, when the original source was the DVIDS site?
Also, I thought that once something was in the public domain in the originating country, it was in the public domain everywhere? I know that content can lapse into the public domain in some countries more quickly than in other countries, but I didn't know it worked in the reverse. I thought that the Burne (sp?) Convention was all about equalizing those terms (at least among signatories). I also don't understand how some countries (apparently) don't even recognize Public Domain (as evidenced in the wording of the PD and CC0 license tags). If you claim no rights and give it away, it seems like that should be the end of it. Of course, I just learned that even if you gave away all your rights to a 3rd party (like a publisher) in the US, there's a limited window of time that comes along where you can recover your rights again. Copyright law and patent laws are just nasty, miserable, and utterly confusing laws that should all be abolished and recreated in a simple, consistent manner worldwide. Or better yet (at least for Commons, but probably not the copyright holders), eliminated entirely so that we can live in a Utopian world of free sharing of information. But, that's not something I would hold my breath waiting for; though it sure would make our lives a whole lot easier!
Thanks again for your input. Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 12:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Official works

Per our rules, files must be free both in the source country and the United States. Are works treated as official and thus not copyrightable in a source country also free in the United States? Per [17] (Dreier, Thomas. Overview of Legal Aspects in the European Union. Pp. 21–23), legal texts (and other official works) deemed free in Germany are still copyrighted in France (and probably also in the United States). --Eleassar (t/p) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Law is not copyrightable in the US as a matter of public policy. Other works may be; I think we have to assume they are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
See 206.01 Edicts of government. Ruslik (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, but what does "legal documents" refer to? Are e.g. #Coins of Ukraine, which were published after 1 March 1989, still copyrighted in the US (per [18]) and thus non-free for Commons? --Eleassar (t/p) 19:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Edicts of government. The basic theory is that if a government is telling people to do or not do something, everyone has a right to disseminate that. People have a right to say that the law in Ukraine says "..." and that a judge has interpreted that mean "...". So coins wouldn't be included.
I don't know about coins. If Ukraine puts their own coins into the public domain, then I'd generally say they were public domain, but that's not cut and dry; we treat Canadian Crown copyright as if its expiration didn't affect US copyright... though it's slightly different when a country puts its own works into the public domain as opposed to setting a copyright duration on it. The law's not real clear, and opinions in Commons vary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Has there been any discussion about this question (i.e. whether government works other than edicts/legal documents are free in the U.S.) in the past? What about images such as [19] and [20], which have been published as an accompanying work to the Slovene act on the national anthem and the national coat of arms?[21] Do these count as edicts? --Eleassar (t/p) 09:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I've found a related discussion in the Wikisource. Per this comment, "works by foreign governments or their officers are no different in the eyes of U.S. law than the works created by other foreign organizations or individuals." (and this includes edicts as well as any other official work). --Eleassar (t/p) 21:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The United States copyright office will not register edicts of for copyright, whether US or foreign. The author of that statement would ignore that; I think it's absurd to ignore the rules of the US government organization that registers copyright when judging what's copyrightable and what's not. To sue someone in the US, they'd literally have to sue the Copyright Office to get it registered first.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Per [22], "Section 411(a) permits a claimant to file a lawsuit for infringement even if the registration application is denied by the Copyright Office." and an accepted application is enough. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and non-US works don't have to be registered at all. However, unless you have a valid registration, then you can't get the compensation in section 412, which means that you get less compensation and that you have to pay for your own court proceedings. Without the compensation in section 412, suing someone in the US usually means that you lose money. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course, the economic compensation is not necessarily the reason for a lawsuit. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so the descendant of the Earl of Oxford can sue us for storing "Shakespeare"'s plays here, even if the copyright office won't register it. I don't see that as a justification for ignoring what the Copyright Office says about what's copyrightable or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Per [23], these plays are not copyrightable. In contrast, e.g. to the coins of the Ukraine hryvnia that were published in the 1990s. So the fact that they actually may is irrelevant. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Then the fact that someone can sue us in your case is equally irrelevant. As for sources on the nature of US copyright law, I regard the United States Copyright Office as a superior authority to a private institution like Cornell. (And this thread was not about the coins of the Ukraine; it was about edicts of government, which the US Copyright Office has made a definitive statement against their copyrightability.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The doubt that foreign government edicts are free is based on reliable sources, whereas the doubt that Shakespeare's works are free is not. The Copyright Office is not the final authority and may be mistaken.[24] Now, I'm not saying (yet) that we should delete them, but I'd like to know more about this matter. There is some doubt even about the U.S. government edicts,[25][26] let alone edicts by foreign governments; and per the cited link, the possibility to get sued for publishing government edicts is serious. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The Copyright Office is probably more knowledgeable about US laws than Commons users, so I suggest that we follow the copyright office's directions until a US court decides that the Copyright Office is wrong. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
In regard to government edicts that have been proclaimed public domain by the Office, I completely agree. However, not so with other government works where we don't have an opinion by the Office, but several sources stating that "materials prepared by any foreign government are entitled to claim copyright protection in the United States." --Eleassar (t/p) 15:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Also [27]: "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted." --Eleassar (t/p) 22:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know how this works, but TX0003578346 is {{PD-RU-exempt}}, isn't it? "Shall not be objects of copyright: official documents of state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations, [...], as well as their official translations;"
Possibly related, I think I read somewhere that s:Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works/Articles 1 to 21#Article 5 (2) might prohibit a "rule of the shorter term" on {{PD-ineligible}}. Maybe Article 5 (2) also prohibits the rule of the shorter term on PD-XXGov and PD-XX-exempt? There was also the case Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc. where a US court granted copyright protection on Japanese works, although the works were below the threshold of originality of Japan, and the case T 1421-07 where a US utilitarian object was granted copyright protection in Sweden, although utilitarian objects are exempt from copyright protection in the United States (something which wasn't mentioned in the ruling). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This seems to go in line with the wider principle of lex loci protectionis. It's a shame that nothing on its application in the United States has been written yet (at this page and at en:Lex loci protectionis). Per the above cases, it seems that it is applied in the courts of the United States. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
What about 206.03? Doesn't it state that coins and other government works that are not edicts will be registered? --Eleassar (t/p) 22:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Only "if they are otherwise copyrightable", whatever that means. It isn't clear if COM:TOO is the only thing which determines "if they are otherwise copyrightable". --Stefan4 (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Also the time of creation/original publication. We may ask the Office to provide us with some guidance about whether anything else is the factor. Well, it would be best to ask it the original question in any case. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this really a question we want to ask the WMF? On one hand, they could grant an exemption to the US-and-home-country status in the case of government-created works which are PD abroad, under the auspices that foreign governments are terribly unlikely to sue when their own laws prohibit them from doing so in their own country. which would provide legitimacy to our uploads. On the other hand, they might say no, these are all non-free, so they must be deleted, at which point we'd need to remove tens of thousands of files (FYI, I prefer the first route, i.e., the legitimate one, as always). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about contacting the Copyright Office (in my own name, as an individual), not the WMF. It may be that edicts should be regarded as free until a court case proves otherwise, but for other foreign government works, the following applies: [28] "materials prepared by any foreign government are entitled to claim copyright protection in the United States." Why should the WMF therefore grant an exemption? --Eleassar (t/p) 06:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:PD-Slovenia

The template Template:PD-Slovenia looks wrong to me. Where does the published before 1970 clause come from? Surely 1995-50 is 1945, meaning files made after 1945 are protected by Slovene copyright law. Can someone who knows more about this look into it? There are many files in Category:PD-Slovenia which could be affected. Liamdavies (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Photographs and works of applied arts were protected for 25 (not 50) years in Slovenia according to the old Yugoslav act; see Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I hope you can see my confusion. Would it be worth putting this on the template to avoid confusions like this in the future? Liamdavies (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I have nothing against adding this. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
As you have maintained the template, and answered this query: would you mind doing it Eleassar? Liamdavies (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please share your concerns, if any, about uploading this show logo. As far as I can tell, the only possible problems are the slight curves found on the upper right side of the vertical black bar and the lower left corner of the red trapezoid background to "COX". Are these enough to push it past TOO? Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 20:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Permission when there are multiple copyright holders

According to this page, US law says that you only need permission from one of the copyright holders if there are multiple copyright holders.

According to 6 § in the Swedish copyright law, permission is needed from all copyright holders if there are multiple copyright holders.

According to w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., you should use Swedish law to determine the copyright holder of a Swedish work in the US, i.e. Swedish law decides who can use the exclusive rights in 17 USC § 106. Does this mean that you need permission from all copyright holders when a Swedish work is used in the United States, or is it still sufficient if you only have permission from one copyright holder? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Does it matter? As a matter of policy Commons requires that uploaded works be free freely licensed in both the source country and the United States. So for our purposes, if it is true that for works covered by Swedish copyright law that permission is needed from all copyright holders, then that is what will be needed to upload that work to Commons.
If your question is more general, it's my understanding that the Court in Itar-Tass decided that in the U.S. ownership of copyright is determined by the copyright law of the country with the most significant relationship to the property and the parties. The court also decided that, conversely, the laws of the country where the infringement was claimed applied when determining whether or not a copyright infringement had occurred. It's just speculation on my part, but if it would not be an infringement in the U.S. to reproduce the work with just permission from one co-owner, then you only need permission of one co-owner, irrespective of the fact that Swedish law would be used to determine who are the owners.
However, in the U.S., the rights of a single co-owner are inadequate to unilaterally release a work under a CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or other "free" license, as the consent of all co-owners is required to use a work for commercial purposes (without accounting for their individual share of the profits). Presumably this is the standard that would apply to your hypothetical. But again, this is all irrelevant on Commons, since we require a work to be freely licensed in both the source country and the United States. —RP88 22:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It's irrelevant if we're just looking a Swedish image, but it is relevant for other images on Commons (e.g. US works). By the way, Stefan's first link also says that permission from all copyright owners is needed for a worldwide non-exclusive license,[29] so that's another reason free licenses can't be issued unilaterally. --Avenue (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, permission from all copyright holders is needed if you wish to use the work in all countries in the world. However, Commons normally only cares about the source country and the United States, so I would guess that Commons only demands permission from all copyright holders if both USA and the source country do this.
The question arose because of a question at the Swedish village pump, COM:BB#Leta reda på upphovsrättsinnehavare. A user wants to upload a Swedish book published in 1932. This book becomes {{PD-old-70}} next year, so in about two months, no permission will be needed to use the book in Sweden, but due to URAA, the book will remain copyrighted in the United States. The user wrote that he is therefore intending to find the heirs of the author and ask for permission. As the Swedish copyright issue will be solved by {{PD-old-70}}, the permission only needs to cover the use of the book in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Pedantically, no, just the US isn't good enough. Several nations have longer then life+70 terms and no rule of the shorter term; from Wikipedia, Colombia (+80), possibly Côte d'Ivoire (+99), possibly Mexico (+100), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (+75), possibly Samoa (+75), and possibly Spain (+80 for practical purposes?). (From w:Rule of the shorter term and w:List of countries' copyright lengths.) A license for just the US isn't Free. (I guess you could interpret policy the other way, but even in an edge case I don't think we should accept nationally limited licenses.)
And good luck on the heirs. My grandfather has been dead a decade and I'd already have a problem finding all the heirs of his copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law is a bit unclear. If it is in the public domain in one of the countries, and there is an OTRS ticket for the other country, is that then enough, or does the OTRS ticket have to cover all countries where it isn't in the public domain yet? Similar case: if I allow people to use a work of mine under CC-BY-SA, but only as long as the use is in either the United States or the source country, would Commons then accept the image, citing COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why Asclepias reverted his response, so I suppose I need to add one. Only free in two countries is simply not free. The spirit of the public domain rule is that many countries have the Rule of the Shorter Term (which isn't applicable when someone offers a free license) and we can't practically follow the rules of every nation in the world. There's no problem with giving a free license to every nation in the world, as per everything else under the GFDL or CC-*, and it's a clear violation of principle of a Free license to say that only people in two nations can use it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts about {{PD-Somalia}}

The copyright tag {{PD-Somalia}} can be used for any work which was made by a Somali citizen residing in Somalia, provided that the work was first published in Somalia and not published in a Berne Convention country within 30 days. It can't be used for unpublished works as 17 U.S.C. 104 (a) tells that unpublished works are copyrighted in the United States even if there is no copyright treaty which demands copyright protection for such works. The Copyright Office says the same thing.

From what I can see, there are two problems here:

  • Some photos are listed as own work by the uploader. Example: File:Edna-adan-maternity-hospital-hargeisa.jpg. Where these published outside Commons more than 30 days before the upload? If not, then they fail the requirement of prior publication in Somalia.
  • Some photos are sourced to the Internet, for example File:Somali man with spotted hyena skin.jpg. Do photos found on the Internet satisfy the publication requirement? This page tells that public display or public performance doesn't constitute publication. If a work is publicly displayed on a website, this could mean that the work is unpublished. There is a case where the Swedish Supreme Court decided that some photos on a website were "unpublished", but the Swedish definition of publication might differ from the US one. Also, in past discussions on Commons, some users have suggested that Internet material is published concurrently in all countries where the Internet is accessible. If the material is unpublished, then {{PD-Somalia}} isn't satisfied as it explicitly only applies to published works, and if the material is published concurrently in every country, then {{PD-Somalia}} isn't satisfied either as the material is published concurrently in Berne Convention countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The US Copyright Office will accept a registration of a work displayed on a website as "unpublished" or "published", submitter's choice. I think a free license is evidence of publication, as of course would offering for money, but just showing up on the web is a case that apparently the Copyright Office has shrugged on.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
And if it is available under a free licence, in which country or countries is it then published? {{PD-Somalia}} has some very specific rules about where the publication should take place... --Stefan4 (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Utilitarian objects in Australia

Are utilitarian objects eligible for copyright in Australia, and how does Australian law define utilitarian objects? We have COM:UA and some other sections on various pages, but they are based exclusively on US law. Utilitarian objects are also ineligible for copyright in the United Kingdom and Japan, but the meaning of the word "utilitarian" is different, as shown in some court rulings. In many other countries, such as France and the Nordic countries, it doesn't matter whether a work is utilitarian; it is copyrighted regardless.

This question is relevant for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rugby league jerseys: are those jerseys utilitarian under Australian law? Based on the court rulings I have found from Japan and the UK, it doesn't sound impossible that courts in those countries would decide that the jerseys are utilitarian, but the outcome in a US court is less certain. The deletion discussion also concerns COM:TOO#Australia. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad license?

Hi! I find this image's declared PD-USGov license weird since the image seems to be from Columbian gov(?). Palosirkka (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the uploader put the wrong licence on a copyrighted image. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

iTunes

Some program published at iTunes uses my photographs without permission, and its author ignores the license. Can I do something in this case? Thank you. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Contact the publisher and request that the photographs either be properly attributed or taken down within seven days. If this is ignored, follow up with an invoice for the cost of using the photographs and see if that has the desired effect. If not, you will have to decide whether it is worth it for you to take legal action against the copyright infringer. Unless I'm mistaken, the Wikimedia Foundation can't really help you with that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

http://pib.nic.in

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/terms.aspx#copyright acceptable in Commons or not Perumalism Chat 16:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

These conditions closely parallel those of {{CC-BY}} plus some non-copyright restrictions. Ruslik (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the licence is sufficient for the Commons. There are two problems. First, clause 2 states that "[a]uthorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the departments/copyright holders concerned", though I suppose this might be considered a non-copyright restriction. But I think the main issue is the requirement that "[t]he material must be reproduced accurately". To me, this implies that modification of the material is not permitted, which goes against Commons policies. — SMUconlaw (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Trade show booth photo?

This is about http://www.flickr.com/photos/starwarsblog/512434450/ - a photo of a company's booth at a trade show. It naturally displays lots of pictures of the company's products. Now we have plenty of pictures of and from trade shows, many displaying company products (Category:Exhibitions by type) - that's kind of their point - but they're often "de minimis". What about this photo, which is a lot of company products in one place, would it be free or infringing? --GRuban (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid this one is not de minimis. The image focuses on the copyrighted material. Furthermore, any potential use I can foresee focuses in copyrighted stuff, too.
Anyway, I think the main question here is if the uploaders in Flickr have got rights to license those images under a free license. If they had, images would be free.--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Government Booklet

This question concerns USA copyright law. I found a 45 page booklet. Date of Publication: 1948. No copyright notice. No reservation of rights notice. Printed by United States Printing Office Publisher: Smithsonian Institution. Two authors listed. Provided that I give proper attribution and indicate which paragraphs were taken from the booklet, what restrictions is there on the use of the material in the booklet? Thanks. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Provided that the booklet was first published in the United States or that the authors were American citizens living in the United States, there are no restrictions to use the material in the United States (see {{PD-US-no notice}}). However, if you wish to use the material outside the United States, for example in France or Germany, you might find that there are restrictions on how you use the material, in particular if the authors weren't government employees. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Portrait d'Alexandre Dumas par Gouin, c.1852.png

I'm thinking about using this file for a small commercial project but I'm not sure it's actually Public Domain. In the file page, the source declared is the Musée d'Orsay but in the linked page (http://www.histoire-image.org/site/etude_comp/etude_comp_detail.php?i=655&d=1&m=Alexandre%20Dumas&id_sel=1140) you can read: 'Contact copyright : Agence photographique de la Réunion des musées nationaux'. And if you look at the image in full preview (http://www.histoire-image.org/pleincadre/index.php?m=Alexandre%20Dumas&d=1&i=655), you can read this sentence: © Photo RMN-Grand Palais - H. Lewandowski. What do you think? --Andale-oh (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

As the header says, "Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer)." If you have concerns about the use of a file, you should probably ask a lawyer in your jurisdiction about the relevant laws to you. In the US this is clearly PD as a work published before 1923.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the copyright license tag to more accurately reflect the status of this image (I changed it to {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1855}}). I recommend you take a look at Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs, it might be relevant to your situation. —RP88 21:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Andale-oh (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Older press photos from Europe

Is there a clear way to determine if this photo could be used in the Commons? It would apparently be PD in the U.S. had it been taken there by the press. But after trying to make sense of Europe's copyright rules, it seems there's no way it could ever be used, and for European press photos in general, after 1923, there is also no chance of their ever being PD on the Commons. Hope I'm wrong since there many older useful photos available. --Light show (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a British photo. In the UK, photos enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer. As the photo was taken in 1965, the copyright can impossibly have expired yet. If the photographer is unknown, then the term changes to 70 years from publication, but there is in my opinion insufficient information on Ebay to claim that the photographer is unknown. The photo might have been published somewhere else with a photo credit, in which case the photographer isn't unknown.
In the United States, the copyright expires 95 years after publication as it was still copyrighted in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1996. The US copyright law doesn't require copyright notices or renewals for European photos which were still copyrighted in the source country on that date. The exception would be if it was published in the United States within 30 days after the first publication in the United Kingdom, in which case standard US rules for copyright formalities apply. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
"...the copyright can impossibly have expired yet." Copyright law is so confusing! EEng (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Then to be copyrighted in the U.K., a photo after 1923 doesn't need either a copyright notice or even a registration? --Light show (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Copyright registration doesn't exist in Europe and there is no such thing as "renewing" a copyright. A copyright notice has no legal meaning (except for old Polish photos, see {{PD-Polish}}). --Stefan4 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Any way to save File:Prince John, 1918.jpg?

The uploader and I agree that this is probably not PD after all -- see discussion here. Anyone see a way to PD? Be sure to follow the source link given on the description page. Thanks. EEng (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the seller presents it as a "photographic postcard" (on the page with the larger image) [30]. Unfortunately, he doesn't supply information about his own source. On the web, you can find at least another copy with the name positioned differently on the photograph. Could have been published before 1923 or not. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
This is for Wikipedia:Prince John of the United Kingdom, in case you hadn't figured that out. Now then... it suddenly occurs to me that this presents an interesting question for, say, a law school Intellectual Property final exam.
Let's suppose it turns out the base work was indeed a postcard, now PD. (We need UK not US law here, but work with me.) But when Prince John signed it he created, I guess, a derivative work. Prince John died in 1919 so, um, let's see, life + 70, um... And depending on who took it, maybe it was subject to Crown copyright [31]... my head is exploding.
Got a link for that other version? EEng (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
On en.wikipedia, the image must comply with U.S. law. If the photo was distributed (published) before 1923, there seems to be no problem with the U.S. law. On Commons, it needs to comply with U.S. law and with U.K. law (because of a policy of Commons) and the difficulty could be to identify the photographer. The other version can be viewed through a Google image search, which returns several results with the version we have and one with the other version. Apparently, it was on a Korean website and it is not there anymore. The webpage gives a message in Korean. To view the image, I suppose you should do the image search while the image is still in the Google cache (or wherever it is). It adds weight to the notion that several copies of the photo were distributed (published) before 1919. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer -- I was aiming for Commons only because it's already there and didn't want the fuss of moving it back. Found the Korean version [32] but I'm beginning to smell a rat. On the one hand this Korean version seems like an obvious fake, and on the other hand the version we already had seems to be on auction at several websites -- the one "unique" item! What a mess. I'll contact the uploader to have him/her tag it for deletion. EEng (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Someone on a forum wrote in 2010 that the second version was "from the Sotheby's auction book of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor" [33]. That seems to refer to one of three volumes published by Sothebys for a 1997 auction. Copies of those volumes are for sale on the web. If someone really wants to check the origin of that version. Other websites that advertise the first print seem to direct to the auction website already found. Just more advertising for the same auction, where the seller only claims the item is "rare". All that seems compatible with several copies distributed in 1918. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
That strengthens the idea that both are authentic, but (to my mind) sounds less like a postcard and more like a private snapshot, of which several prints were made and signed by John, then given to relatives. That seems to lack the "public" aspect of "publication", which leaves the base image out of PD. (Understand I'd certainly like to see it available for the article, but I'm an honest man.) EEng (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Defective copyright notice?

Any opinion on whether this publicity photo's copyright notice is defective, showing no date on the front or back? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not defective. Look at section 19 of the older law (s: United_States_Code/Title_17/1976-10-18/Chapter_1/Sections_19_to_21); only a "printed literary, musical, or dramatic work" was required to have the year. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Question

I have a question regarding the odd requirements on File:Jens Stoltenberg 2007 04 18.jpg and its attribution requirements. Is Commons really insisting that Wikipedia slap "Photo: Harry Wad" on the caption of the thumbnail on the respective article (and any others the photo might be used on)? And what exactly is all that about "you avoid using words that can be considered offensive"? Am I, just on the basis of the license, restricted from doing something like:

[personal attack on subject redacted]

-- Veggies (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I think that if the copyright holder stipulates how to be credited you must follow it, so yes. It is nothing to do with Commons, we are simply a repository for 'free' files. The sections that relates to crediting the author is section 4. b.. Liamdavies (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Credited, fine. But "offensive words"? I can't even comprehend what that means. Who decides? The author? -- Veggies (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is muddying the waters a little. To avoid confusion for later readers, the key points are also separate issues:

  1. Photographs of living people should not be used on any project as a personal attack or used in a defamatory way (such as racist or homophobic hate speech). Writing something like "This guy is evil" as text under an image has nothing to do with copyright, it is just simple misuse of Wikimedia projects.
  2. The same rules should apply to copyrighted attribution. Commons is not obliged to host an image that intrudes into the personal life of a living person or is unnecessarily humiliating or degrading for that person. Should a declared attribution statement ever attempt to do this, I and many other regular contributors would be happy to raise it up for deletion as being against Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Attribution is required when defined as part of the copyright statement, however this does not mean that the copyright statement is required to be used as a visible tag-line on every sister project where a Commons image is transcluded. The image page is sufficient as it is available on a click-through.
  4. Photographer names would rarely be considered a breach of policy by themselves unless they are blatant pseudonyms intended to attack the subject of a photograph. I would advise caution, it is not unusual for photographers to have real names such as "Bent", "Gay" or "Cock", in fact these surnames have a long and interesting history. However I have never met anyone called "U.R. Gay" and a bit of common sense would lead us to do a bit of verification or ask a few questions in similar cases.

-- (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding what designates as point (3): Requirements regarding where to place the attribution are not consistent with Creative Commons' licensing terms or Wikimedia Commons' principles, and files with such terms have been deleted in the past, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kristiansand Gamle Varoddbrua 1956 auf der Varodd-Brücke L 618 m Spannweite 337 Foto 2010 Wolfgang Pehlemann DSCN1547.jpg/Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-05#File:Kristiansand Gamle Varoddbrua 1956 auf der Varodd-Brücke L 618 m Spannweite 337 Foto 2010 Wolfgang Pehlemann DSCN1547.jpg. LX (talk, contribs) 08:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems we deleted those files due to our ignorance. When a work is licensed under a CCPL, any other conditions conflicting with that license terms can be simply ignored. But anybody is allowed to give more permissions.
I agree with Fæ that all the attribution requirements are satisfied when a URI (text, html, or image hyperlink as in Wikipedia pages) is provided. See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Attribution_and_marking too
I agree that many custom templates used in "permission" and "attribution" fields of {{int:filedesc}} are confusing. Many people add terms like "If you use this file outside the Wikimedia Projects, you are violating copyright unless you clearly attribute the work to ...". But the CC people already clarified that no separate licensing terms for Wikimedia projects; everything is same for every re-users. JKadavoor Jee 09:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The effect of additional terms expressed by the original author was covered in the linked discussion. See the quote from Creative Commons in Neozoon's closing arguments in the undeletion discussion. LX (talk, contribs) 14:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
LX, thanks for the example cases, they are useful past discussions. When it comes to Creative Commons, Jkadavoor is correct and this seems supported by Geoff Brigham's statement. However this does not mean that Commons has to ignore dubious attempted constraints from a licence holder. In fact, as we may accept any statement of copyright so long as it is suitably free (allowing derivatives and commercial re-use), this does not mean that Creative Commons has the last say for our project.
For example the Open Government licence looks a lot like Public Domain but is not quite, as it introduces a specific attribution requirement. We still accept it as a useful and clear special type of public domain licence.
We are in danger of reiterating the same points several times; my last word for this point would be that when licence terms appear overly restrictive, then as the Commons community should not appear to make promises we can't keep, the best thing may be to be seen to respect the wishes of the copyright holder by deleting the image from Commons, even if their wishes are not lawfully enforceable or legally meaningful. There would have to be a convincing argument of public benefit, potentially down to the irreplaceable nature of the image, for me to want to keep a particular image where this was a problem and keeping it may distress the photographer/copyright holder. As a pragmatic example, were I replying to an OTRS request from someone with serious concerns about attribution, and so they wanted watermarks to be kept on an image, then I would have to advise against releasing their works on Commons (or elsewhere that does not accept 'no derivatives' constraints) on a CC-BY-SA licence as we routinely remove watermarks even when the photographer has firmly and clearly requested they be kept. -- (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Well said. Since the example quoted by LX seems forwarded from the de wiki, and it looks to my like personally motivated by some hidden interests of the op, I prefer to keep silent. The requirement "directly under the photo" seems problematic; but "with ref. to the licence terms CC-BY-SA" solves all the issues by those words. :) JKadavoor Jee 15:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Deadly dagger (UF6 image)

Uranium hexafluoride crystals sealed in an ampoule.jpg

Could someone investigate this image's provenance and update the file page please? Would like the thing buttoned up as it goes into a very high viewed, high quality, well-reviewed article on En-Wiki.

In the deep dark of my memory, I seem to think we looked into this image before and it was by a DOE (not Nat Lab) employee and came out of a book or publication by DOE. But I'm not sure and can't find it.

69.255.27.249 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The picture was taken from here: http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/uf6/index.cfm. The "About us" page reads "Argonne National Laboratory administers this web site for The U.S. DOE Office of Environmental Management." I think this is the reason why the picture was uploaded in the first place. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the same photo as File:UF6.jpg. I think I looked it up before -- see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/08#UF6_in_tube_from_Argonne -- and it showed up in a DOE video, so seems likely it was a DOE photo. But no definite proof. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You rule. I remember we had done something. I guess the file name changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.46.48 (talk • contribs)

Eine Freigabe für mehrere Bilder

Hallo, ich habe eine Freigabe für eine große Anzahl von Bildern von der Initiative Stolpersteine Frankfurt am Main e.V. Die Bilder liegen auf der Seite der Stadt Frankfurt am Main. Die Lizenz der Bilder liegt bei der Initiative Stolpersteine Frankfurt am Main e.V. Wie trage ich dies richtig ein?? (Habe ich per Mail, allerdings nicht mit dem Formular) --Woelle ffm (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Am besten die Mail ans OTRS weiterleiten und mit den OTRS-Leuten die weitere Vorgehensweise absprechen. --Rosenzweig τ 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict, Rosenzweig war schneller) Erstmal als Standardbemerkung: die Freigabe muss unbedingt für alle Nutzungen (auch außerhalb von Wikipedia und kommerziell) erfolgen, sie darf also bis auf eine evtl. Namensnennung nicht eingeschränkt sein - am besten ist hier wirklich eine der unter Commons:licensing vorgegebenen Lizenzen zu verwenden (z.B. Creative Commons). Ansonsten gibt es eigentlich 2 Möglichkeiten: Entweder dem Ablauf unter COM:OTRS folgen, bei Problemen und Fragen gibt es das COM:OTRS/Noticeboard. Nicht-Standard Mails werden -soweit ich weiß- auch akzeptiert, aber nur wenn die uneingeschränkte Freigabe darin klar ist (ansonsten nochmal OTRS selbst fragen). Die zweite Möglichkeit, falls die Bilder sowieso auf einer öffentlichen Webseite liegen, wäre die Freigabe auf der Webseite anzeigen zu lassen und dann nur unter "Permission" im Bild zu verlinken. GermanJoe (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Mail ans OTRS geschrieben, warte auf Antwort--Woelle ffm (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

copyrighted descriptions in Images_from_ReusableArt

Hey all,

A little while ago we received a DMCA take down notice for the 2257 images in Images_from_ReusableArt which were mass uploaded in March (the claim is based on the images as a curated database). Given the nature of the images (all public domain) we are fighting the demand to take down the pictures however the upload also included copying over all of the descriptions. In researching the case we noted that they also claim copyright to all text on the site ( you can see on their about page under 'Our Copyrights'. ) This includes the descriptions which were copied over and we think that the claim on that is solid. Because we're still talking with the site owner and the DMCA was for the images (rather then the text) we aren't taking them down as an office action at this point but wanted to bring it to the attention of the community since removing that text is likely best from a reusability and copyright stand point. Jalexander--WMF 23:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the copyrighted descriptions from A Apple Pie; only ~2240 images left to go. The descriptions aren't really suited for Commons, anyway; for example, "Oh how sad, they're taking away the pie. Not to worry, it'll be back. Kate Greenaway has brought such a wonderful spirit to this old poem to help children learn their ABCs. This bit of vintage goodness is available for free download and would make a perfect addition to your next creative project." for File:A Apple Pie, M.jpg.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
As the uploader, I'm slightly amazed, this seems an extremely poor use of DCMA notices considering the site pushes itself as a public service encouraging to reuse the images and credit the contributors. I suggest not removing the named authors or other basic data. I'll take a look at the notice and the possibility of blanking all descriptions en-mass from this collection to comply with their conditions (though unlikely to be as good as manual deletion). As Prosfilaes points out, loosing the semi-promotional text is no great loss. -- (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think the basic data is any real problem, the descriptions however are a bit too long to be called basic and (as has been said) aren't a great loss. Thanks for looking into an easier way to do it. Jalexander--WMF 07:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I am running a quick fix by just blanking all descriptions and permissions text but leaving the credited author/editors. Apologies to Prosfilaes, please re-add or revert my changes for those you have handled so far. The changed files can be reviewed at Images from ReusableArt (check needed) and should all be completed today. I note the DCMA notice is not at chilledeffects, but I would guess their objection can only relate to these fields.
I'd appreciate it if we could avoid an office action. As the request is public and relates to how the source website terms are implemented, this seems an easy one to handle via the community, even if deletions end up being the best option. It is a pity that Reusableart did not follow the OTRS process as this would have the same result without the hassle of legal instruments. -- (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The DCMA was not about the descriptions according to Jalexander; it was about the copying of the complete archive, as they are claiming a compilation copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Not quite as I would not understand what a "compilation copyright" would be. Putting public domain images in a catalogue does not introduce a new copyright on the public domain images. There are two key phrases in the first paragraph of this thread from Jalexander which appear legally meaningful to me:
  1. curated database - under UK law I recognize that "database rights" may have their own copyright status outside of the content of individual records. In this case the question would be whether Commons is now hosting a replica of the database structure, or significant parts of it. Without the textual descriptions, what remains of the metadata are basic facts available anywhere, such as the original author or the year of publication, these are not copyrightable even in large numbers, as there is no significant added creative content and there are no database structures inherited, such as intelligent cross-links between the records or any significant creative tagging or categorization.
  2. copyright to all text on the site - this would be a fair claim of copyright where the text appears original and therefore has creative content. However with the permission statement and descriptions removed, what remains are basic facts, again (per a "telephone directory" rationale) there is not sufficient creativity outside of what is demonstrably public domain elsewhere, to be a credible claim of copyright.
I would be happy to take all 2,263 images to a deletion request myself, if my actions in blanking the relevant copyrightable text is thought not be sufficient by WMF legal, though if that occurs I would like to have the text of the DMCA request published so the community can see the exact wording of any claim of copyright beyond what is published as terms on the website. Particularly if my process of data-mining public records in the UK which have been openly published on the internet in the USA starts to be an issue, as I would like to see some case studies of where a US court recognized such a thing is legally enforceable outside of the existing understanding of database rights and where no contract has been agreed in any country before accessing these records. -- (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Blanking of descriptions is now completed. -- (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
To quote Title 17 of the US Legal Code, "A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works." You can't take the poems from the Oxford Book of Victorian Poetry and publish your own anthology with the same poems; you have to actually put the work into choosing your own selection of poems. It gets more complex when you're copying without the original order or structure and submerging into a vast preexisting collection.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks similar to database rights. In which case the only element left here is pure selection, and considering this is somebody haphazardly scanning any public domain clip art they can easily lay their hands on, "availability" as a selection process by its own could never be sufficiently creative; this is not a case of Duchamp's urinal. We have now taken every reasonable step to remove all other elements of "coordination" and "arrangement", in particular the source website hierarchy has not been reproduced on Commons, so there can be no reasonable claim of reproduction of a compilation.
If anyone has significant doubt left that something creative is left in this pile of public domain clip art, then they should raise a bundle deletion request and the case can be laid out. This would be worth doing, just to establish the precedent on how similar "compilation rights" on public domain works ought to be interpreted and implemented for when there is another DMCA take down request or a more informal request via OTRS. -- (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The only way that their "creative bundling" seems to be present in Commons is in grouping them into a single category Images_from_ReusableArt. It seems to me that at worst this category would be a derivative work, and the images themselves would be fine. ghouston (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It would seem slightly petty to purge these uploads of all reference to the source website, though admittedly this would leave us with absolutely nothing but the public domain images and their original sources. If WMF Legal contact me to do so, then I can do this, perhaps replacing the category with a DMCA notice number or an OTRS ticket number created for this purpose. :-) -- (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Clarification

Hi, We huge collection of PD book in West Bengal Public Library Network , but I have specific question about copyright, here one book of author w:en:Upendrakishore Ray Chowdhury (1863-1915), his all works now public domain in India as per copyright act ( {{PD-India}}), here his book UPENDRAKISHOR SAMAGRA RACHANABALI,VOL.2 (http://dspace.wbpublibnet.gov.in:8080/jspui/handle/10689/12692), published by ASIA PUBLICATION,KOLKATA in 1959. If upload this book in commons, will be it copyright violation?? Jayantanth (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Because he died more than 70 years ago, all his works are in public domain in (practically) all countries. So, you can upload this book. Ruslik (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
In the US, which is required for Commons, a work needs to be published before 1923 to be out of copyright; some newer works are out of copyright, but the rules are complex. In the US and (practically) all countries, you need to look closely at newer books. Editing a story can be a copyrightable act, particularly if it includes abridgements or Bowlerdization; footnotes are copyrighted to the editor who added them, as are introductions and a number of other things that weren't part of the original work. I can't read Bengali, so I don't know what if anything was added or changed on this 1959 work that might be copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Originality in the field of applied arts

I've rewritten a part of COM:UA (diff). A review and comment would be welcome; is the change ok? --Eleassar (t/p) 08:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the whole section needs to be rewritten as it is US-centric. Many copyright laws, such as the Nordic countries, do not differ between utilitarian and non-utilitarian objects, but the section suggests that utilitarian objects aren't copyrighted worldwide. Also, it isn't clear whether a work of applied art includes utilitarian objects or if those are separate. Also, in countries which don't provide copyright for utilitarian objects, the definition of "utilitarian" differs from country to country. For example, toys are generally utilitarian in Japan, but not in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Judged by it, the change has been made in the right direction. I agree that the rest of the section should also be rewritten to be more general and that the definitions should be clarified. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)